Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212 : Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Decided Before Expiry of Procedural Fairness Response Period

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a family-class spousal sponsorship refusal after finding that the Applicant was not given the full 30-day period promised in the procedural fairness letter (PFL) to respond. The Officer issued the refusal only 15 days after the PFL, before the response period expired. The Court held that this breached procedural fairness and rejected the argument that reconsideration would serve no purpose because the refusal was inevitable. Pasted text

Key Principle

Where an officer provides an applicant with a specific period to respond to a PFL, the applicant must be given the full opportunity promised before a final decision is made. A decision issued before the expiry of that period constitutes a breach of procedural fairness, particularly where information submitted before the deadline could potentially affect the outcome. The Court will not necessarily decline to provide a remedy merely because the respondent argues that the ultimate result appears inevitable. Pasted text

Background

The Applicant, a citizen of India, married the sponsor in January 2023 and subsequently applied for permanent residence under the Family Class-Spousal Sponsorship process. The sponsor had previously obtained permanent residence through Express Entry. The record indicated that the sponsor had failed to declare the Applicant as a family member during his own permanent residence process. Pasted text

IRCC issued a PFL on November 25, 2024, relying on IRPR s 117(9)(d). The Officer stated that because the Applicant had not been declared or examined as a family member when the sponsor applied for permanent residence, she was not a member of the family class. Importantly, the PFL expressly provided 30 days for the Applicant to submit additional information. Pasted text

However, the Officer issued the refusal on December 10, 2024, before the 30-day response period had expired. The Applicant subsequently submitted reconsideration materials on December 12, including information concerning the circumstances surrounding the sponsor’s failure to update his marital status. Pasted text

Court Findings

• Premature decision breached procedural fairness: The Court found that the Applicant was not given a “full and fair opportunity” to respond because the Officer issued the decision before the expiration of the response period expressly provided in the PFL. Pasted text

• Outcome was not necessarily inevitable: The Respondent argued that remitting the matter would serve no purpose because the sponsor had failed to disclose the marriage. The Court rejected this argument. The reconsideration letters submitted before the expiry of the PFL contained information that should have been considered before the decision was made. Consequently, the Court was not satisfied that the outcome was inevitable. Pasted text

• Applicant responsibility did not cure the procedural breach: Although the Court accepted that applicants are generally responsible for ensuring applications are complete and for the actions of their representatives, those principles did not eliminate the Officer’s obligation to respect the procedural opportunity expressly provided in the PFL. Pasted text

Outcome

The application for judicial review was granted. Because the procedural fairness breach was dispositive, the Court did not determine whether the underlying refusal was reasonable. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Sandhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 212 (CanLII)