Rupal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1371 : PGWP Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored a Timely Request for a New Passport Submission Letter

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Romal Deep Singh Rupal’s post-graduation work permit application. IRCC had already determined that he met the PGWP requirements and approved the application, subject to submitting his passport within 30 days. The applicant did not receive notice that the passport request had been posted to his online account. After discovering it, he immediately requested a new passport submission letter and later sent his passport to IRCC. The Court granted judicial review because the officer refused the application without addressing the applicant’s request, which IRCC had acknowledged and added to the file before the refusal.

Key Principle

An officer must meaningfully consider material submissions received and added to an applicant’s file before making a final decision. Where an applicant requests a renewed passport submission letter after missing the original deadline, and IRCC confirms that the request has been received, the officer cannot refuse the application solely for non-compliance without acknowledging and addressing that request. The issue is not whether refusal might otherwise have been available, but whether the reasons demonstrate that the officer considered the evidence before making the decision.

Background

The applicant completed his studies in Canada and applied for a PGWP after returning abroad.

On October 25, 2023, an officer recorded that the PGWP requirements were met and approved the application. IRCC issued an online request requiring the applicant to submit his passport within 30 days.

The applicant did not receive notification that the request was available in his online account. His representative discovered it during a routine account review on January 11, 2024.

The applicant immediately submitted a webform requesting a new passport submission letter. IRCC confirmed on January 15 that the request had been added to his file.

He also contacted the New Delhi visa office and sent his passport on January 24. The application was nevertheless refused on January 29 for failing to comply with the original passport request.

Court Findings

• Request for a New Passport Submission Letter Was a Material Issue
The Court held that once the original passport submission deadline had expired, the applicant’s request for a new passport request letter became a central issue in the application. The officer was therefore required to consider and address that request before refusing the Post-Graduation Work Permit application.

• IRCC Acknowledged the Request Before the Refusal Was Made
The applicant promptly submitted a webform requesting a new passport submission letter after discovering the missed deadline, and IRCC confirmed that the request had been received and added to the file before the refusal decision was issued. The Court found that this made the submission part of the record the officer was required to consider.

• Officer Failed to Grapple with the Applicant’s Submission
Neither the refusal letter nor the GCMS notes mentioned the applicant’s webform request or explained why a new passport submission letter was not issued. By failing to engage with this material submission, the officer did not demonstrate that the decision reflected consideration of all relevant evidence before the refusal.

• Whether the Passport Reached IRCC Was Not Determinative
The Court held that it was unnecessary to decide whether the applicant’s passport had physically reached the visa office before the refusal. The decisive issue was the officer’s failure to address the acknowledged request for a renewed passport submission letter, regardless of whether the passport itself had been received.

• Decision Was Unreasonable for Lack of Transparency and Justification
The Court concluded that the officer’s failure to consider and respond to the applicant’s acknowledged request undermined the transparency, intelligibility, and justification required under Vavilov. The PGWP refusal was therefore set aside and returned to a different officer for redetermination.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the PGWP application to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Rupal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1371 (CanLII)