Nunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1051 : PR Card Refusal Unreasonable for Failure to Address Reconsideration Request

In Nunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1051, the Federal Court allowed judicial review of a refusal concerning the Applicant’s permanent resident card. The Applicant had expressly asked IRCC to reconsider the 2018 decision accepting his voluntary renunciation of permanent resident status, arguing that the renunciation resulted from a misunderstanding and erroneous advice. The Court found that the decision-maker failed to address this central request and simply concluded that the Applicant was no longer entitled to a PR card. The decision was therefore unreasonable because the reasons were not responsive, transparent, or intelligible.

Background

The Applicant, a Portuguese citizen, had lived in Canada since the age of nine and was a permanent resident. In September 2018, while travelling in Florida, he was unable to board his return flight to Canada because he had forgotten his PR card. While attempting to obtain an eTA, he was presented with an option to voluntarily renounce his permanent resident status. He selected that option, and IRCC approved the renunciation. He later discovered that he had lost his PR status and was no longer entitled to a PR card.

In 2023, the Applicant’s counsel submitted a request asking IRCC to reconsider and reverse the 2018 renunciation decision on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The request explained that the Applicant had not understood the consequences of renouncing his status and had relied on erroneous advice. He also applied for a new PR card. IRCC ultimately refused the application, stating that because the Applicant had voluntarily renounced his status, he was no longer entitled to a PR card.

Key Principle

A decision-maker must meaningfully address the central issue actually raised by an applicant. Where an applicant expressly asks for reconsideration of an earlier administrative decision, the decision-maker cannot simply ignore that request and decide only a related application.

Under Vavilov, administrative decisions must demonstrate an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and provide reasons that are justified, transparent, and intelligible.

Court Findings

• The Decision Failed to Address the Reconsideration Request

The Court found that the Applicant had expressly and repeatedly requested reconsideration of the 2018 decision accepting his renunciation. The September 2023 letter clearly identified the request, provided legal submissions, and included supporting evidence. The October 2024 decision, however, was silent on this issue.

• The Applicant’s Request Was Not Merely for a PR Card

The Court rejected the Respondent’s characterization that the Applicant had only sought a new PR card. Although a PR card application was submitted, the materials consistently made clear that the card application was connected to the request to reconsider and reverse the earlier renunciation.

• IRCC Could Not Simply Ignore a Potentially Misfiled Request

Even if the Applicant had submitted the reconsideration request to the wrong IRCC office, the Court held that this did not justify ignoring it. IRCC should either have directed the request to the appropriate decision-maker or alerted the Applicant to the procedural problem so that he could take the necessary steps.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the October 21, 2024 decision, and remitted the matter to a new decision-maker or decision-makers with authority to consider all aspects of the application, including the request to reconsider the Applicant’s 2018 renunciation of permanent resident status. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Nunes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1051 (CanLII)