Maliyekkal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1592 : Federal Court Sets Aside Express Entry Application Rejection After IRCC Incorrectly Treated a Document Requirement as a Regulatory Requirement

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s rejection of Omar Shijin Puthiyara Maliyekkal’s Express Entry permanent residence application. IRCC refused the application as incomplete because a birth certificate for one of the applicant’s non-accompanying dependents was not provided. The Court granted judicial review, finding that IRCC incorrectly treated a document requirement as an information requirement under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that immigration authorities must apply the requirements contained in the legislation and regulations. Departmental instructions may guide applicants but cannot create additional legal requirements beyond what is established in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. A refusal based on an incorrect interpretation of regulatory requirements is unreasonable.

Background

The applicant, an Indian citizen and software developer, had been living and working in Canada for three years on a closed work permit. He was invited to apply for permanent residence through Express Entry and submitted his application in January 2024.

The applicant applied only for himself but fully disclosed his spouse and three children as non-accompanying dependents. In his covering letter, he explained that he intended to sponsor his family through the family class after obtaining permanent residence and requested that IRCC contact him if additional information was required.

IRCC rejected the application in April 2024, stating that it was incomplete because the birth certificate of one dependent child was missing. The rejection letter relied on sections 10 and 12 of the Regulations, stating that required documents had not been provided.

Court Findings

• IRCC Confused Information and Document Requirements

The Court found that IRCC incorrectly interpreted section 10 of the Regulations. The provision requires applicants to provide information about family members, including their names, birth dates, addresses, nationality, and immigration status. It does not specifically require birth certificates for non-accompanying dependents.

Justice Brouwer held that while a birth certificate may be useful evidence to confirm information provided in an application, the document itself is not the same as the information required under the Regulations.

• Express Entry Instructions Cannot Override Regulations

The Respondent argued that Express Entry instructions require applicants to provide dependent birth certificates. The Court rejected this argument, noting that administrative instructions do not have the force of law and cannot narrow access to immigration programs beyond the requirements established by legislation.

If an officer relied only on program instructions to determine that the application was incomplete, this would amount to an improper restriction of discretion.

• Decision Lacked Legal Foundation

The Court concluded that IRCC’s rejection of the application was unreasonable because it was not justified by the actual requirements of the Regulations. Since the application contained the required information about the applicant’s dependents, section 12 did not apply.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. The applicant was given an opportunity to update his application before a new decision. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Maliyekkal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1592 (CanLII)