Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1696 : Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship Application Properly Refused After Applicant Failed to Respond to Procedural Fairness Letters

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Surjeet Singh’s permanent residence application under the Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship Program and IRCC’s refusal to reconsider that decision. The application was rejected as incomplete after the sponsor failed to respond to two procedural fairness letters identifying missing information. Although the applicant and sponsor denied receiving the letters, the Court found that IRCC had established they were properly sent. The risk of non-delivery therefore rested with the applicant and sponsor.

Key Principle

Once IRCC establishes that correspondence was correctly sent to the address provided by an applicant or sponsor, IRCC is not required to prove that the correspondence was actually received. The risk of non-delivery rests with the person seeking immigration status. An application may reasonably be refused as incomplete where procedural fairness letters identify missing information and no response is received. Providing the missing information only after refusal does not require IRCC to reopen or reconsider the application.

Background

The applicant, an Indian citizen, was sponsored by his Canadian-citizen son under the Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship Program. Both were represented by legal counsel.

IRCC sent two procedural fairness letters to the sponsor’s residential address, identifying missing information and allowing time to respond. No response was received, and the application was refused as incomplete.

The refusal letter was sent to the same address and was received. The sponsor then requested reconsideration, stating that neither he nor counsel had received the procedural fairness letters. The missing information was included with the reconsideration request.

IRCC refused to reopen the application.

Court Findings

• IRCC Established That the Procedural Fairness Letters Were Sent
The Court held that IRCC provided sufficient evidence demonstrating that both procedural fairness letters were properly mailed to the sponsor’s residential address. An affidavit explaining IRCC’s standard mailing process, together with the corresponding GCMS entries, established that the letters had been sent, even though the applicant maintained they were never received.

• Proof of Actual Receipt Was Not Required
The Court confirmed that once IRCC proves correspondence was correctly sent to the address provided by the applicant or sponsor, it has no legal obligation to establish that the correspondence was actually received. The immigration authorities are not required to guarantee delivery of every communication.

• Risk of Non-Delivery Rests With the Applicant
Although the Court accepted that the applicant and sponsor may genuinely not have received the procedural fairness letters, this did not render the process unfair. Under established Federal Court jurisprudence, the risk of non-delivery falls on the applicant or sponsor once IRCC has properly sent the correspondence.

• Refusal of the Sponsorship Application Was Reasonable
The Court held that the permanent residence application was not refused on its substantive merits but because it remained incomplete after the requested information was not provided within the time allowed. Since the procedural fairness letters identified the deficiencies and no response was received, the refusal was reasonable.

• Refusal to Reconsider Was Also Reasonable
The Court found that the officer reasonably declined to reopen the application after the refusal. Because the reconsideration request was rejected at the preliminary stage, the officer was not required to assess the newly submitted information or determine the application on its merits.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld both the original refusal and the refusal to reconsider. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1696 (CanLII)