Sungai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 825 : Spousal Open Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where IRCC Failed to Clarify the Sponsor’s Study Status

The Federal Court allowed a judicial review after finding that an immigration officer breached procedural fairness by refusing a spousal open work permit application without giving the applicant an opportunity to explain a change in the principal applicant’s study status. The Court held that where an officer questions the accuracy of information rather than its sufficiency, fairness may require the officer to seek clarification before refusing the application.

Key Principle

While applicants bear the responsibility of submitting complete applications, procedural fairness requires an officer to provide an opportunity to respond where concerns arise about the accuracy or continued validity of information previously provided. A refusal based on changed circumstances without first seeking clarification may be procedurally unfair.

Background

The applicant sought a spousal open work permit based on his spouse’s valid study permit and full-time enrolment in Canada. During processing, the visa officer consulted the student compliance portal, which indicated that the spouse was no longer actively enrolled.

Unknown to the officer, the spouse had been granted an authorized medical leave due to pregnancy and remained compliant with her study permit conditions. Without requesting clarification or additional information, the officer refused the application on the basis that the spouse was no longer pursuing full-time studies.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Required an Opportunity to Respond

Justice Régimbald held that the officer’s concern related to the accuracy of the information rather than the sufficiency of the evidence. Once the officer discovered information suggesting that the applicant’s circumstances had changed during processing, fairness required giving the applicant an opportunity to explain the medical leave before refusing the application.

• Officers Must Distinguish Between Insufficient Evidence and Changed Circumstances

The Court emphasized that applicants are generally expected to submit complete applications, and officers are not ordinarily required to request additional documents. However, this principle does not apply where the officer relies on new information obtained after the application was filed that calls into question the continued accuracy of the original evidence.

• The Decision Was Based on Incomplete Information

The Court found that the application met the eligibility requirements when it was submitted. Rather than assessing whether the spouse’s authorized medical leave affected her status, the officer relied solely on the student compliance portal and refused the application without providing the applicant with notice of the concern. This deprived the applicant of a fair opportunity to address the issue.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal, and returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination. The decision confirms that where an officer’s concerns relate to the accuracy of information revealed during processing, procedural fairness may require the applicant to be given an opportunity to respond before a negative decision is made.

Case Citation:
Sungai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 825 (CanLII)