Federal Court Dismisses Afghan Refugee Sponsorship Judicial Review Application

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260528 Docket: IMM-15783-24 Citation: 2026 FC 694 Ottawa, Ontario, May 28, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. [APPELLANT], is a citizen of Afghanistan who sought to be sponsored in Canada under the “Temporary public policy to facilitate the sponsorship of Afghan refugees by groups of five and community sponsors” [Temporary Policy]. This Temporary Policy had been instituted in October 2022 as a result of notorious circumstances going on in Afghanistan and that permitted, on a temporary basis, and for a limited number of people, to be sponsored in Canada by a Canadian group of five, without having to submit a Refugee Status Determination [RSD] document issued by the [NAME]. [ 2 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] seeks judicial review of a decision rendered on July 11, 2024 [Decision] by an Officer of the [RESPONDENT], [NAME] [IRCC] returning his application as incomplete and ineligible for processing on the basis that he had failed to file the RSD document. [ 3 ] Mr. [NAME] argues that the Decision to return his application as incomplete is unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider the totality of the evidence before them, did not reasonably justify the Decision, acted in a way that is contrary to law, and breached procedural fairness by not providing Mr. [APPELLANT] with an opportunity to make submissions on the completeness of his application before returning it to him. [ 4 ] The Respondent, the Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT] [Minister], argues that the Officer’s Decision is reasonable because Mr. [APPELLANT] failed to properly submit his application as per the requirements of the Temporary Policy and the Officer thus reasonably processed his application as dictated by the [RESPONDENT] Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], which required that the RSD document be submitted as part of the application. The Minister also submits, in the alternative, that the Court should exercise its residual discretion not to grant judicial review in the present circumstances. According to the Minister, granting judicial review and the remedy of redetermination at this stage when the Temporary Policy under which Mr. [APPELLANT] applied had reached capacity and was closed for further applications would be futile and have no “practical significance”. [ 5 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 6 ] The Temporary Policy came into effect on October 17, 2022, and was set to expire either on October 17, 2023, or once applications for 3000 individuals have been accepted into processing, whichever comes first. [ 7 ] The instructions for applications under the Temporary Policy instruct that the application materials must be emailed and must include a subject line that identifies the application as one made under the Temporary Policy: “[NAME] [[NAME], First name]” . [ 8 ] On December 5, 2022, Mr. [NAME] submitted an application seeking to be sponsored under the Temporary Policy, which exempted eligible applicants from s. 153(1)(b) of [NAME] requirement to submit an RSD document as part of their application materials. [ 9 ] While Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application referenced the Group of 5 sponsorship application under the Temporary Policy in the cover letter and materials, there is no evidence that Mr. [APPELLANT] properly submitted his application under the Temporary Policy with the subject line “[NAME] [[NAME], First name]”, as required by the instructions for applications under the Temporary Policy and that he complied with these Temporary Policy instructions. [ 10 ] Unbeknownst to Mr. [APPELLANT], the program was full as of December 1, 2022, which is evidenced by the policy update and the IRCC webpage in Exhibit "A" attached to the [NAME] affidavit filed by the Minister. The evidence is that the Temporary Policy had expired by the date he submitted his above-referenced application with the intent that it be filed under the Temporary Policy.

III. Decision Under Judicial Review [ 11 ] The Decision under judicial review is the correspondence dated July 11, 2024. In that correspondence, the Officer advised Mr. [APPELLANT] that the correspondence dated June 28, 2024 that had been sent to him indicating that his [COMPANY] was complete and would be put into processing had been sent as a result of a clerical error and offered their sincere apologies for any confusion. The Officer noted that after reviewing Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application, they noticed the application was missing a document, the RSD, and was as such incomplete. The application was thus returned to Mr. [APPELLANT] in its entirety. The correspondence directs Mr. [APPELLANT] to resubmit a new and completed application that includes the RSD document. [ 12 ] It is clear from the Decision that the Officer treated Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application as a regular overseas refugee sponsorship application when determining that the application was incomplete, as it did not contain an RSD document required for regular oversees sponsorships. There is no dispute that Mr. [APPELLANT] did not provide the RSD document along with his application.

IV. Issues [ 13 ] This matter raises the following issues: Was it reasonable for the IRCC to process Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application without reference to the Temporary Policy? Was the Decision procedurally unfair to Mr. [APPELLANT] by not giving him notice and allowing him the opportunity to correct his application? Should the Court exercise its residual discretion not to grant judicial review because the requested remedy – redetermination – would be futile? V. Standard of Review [ 14 ] The presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ] at paras 10, 25. To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99. For the reviewing court to intervene, the party challenging the decision must satisfy the court that “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” and that the alleged flaws “must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision” : [NAME] at para 100. [ 15 ] [ADDRESS] must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; a decision may be unreasonable, however, if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it” : [NAME] at paras 125-126. [ 16 ] Regarding Mr. [APPELLANT]’s procedural fairness argument, in assessing this ground for judicial review, strictly speaking, no standard of review is implicated. The question I must answer is whether Mr. [APPELLANT] knew the case he had to meet, was given a right to be heard and had a full and fair chance to do so: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 56.

VI. Analysis A. Was it reasonable for the IRCC to process Mr. [APPELLANT]'s application without reference to the Temporary Policy? [ 17 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] made many submissions in his Memorandum of Law and Arguments regarding the underlying merits of his sponsorship application. The Decision does not address the underlying merit of the sponsorship application, only the completeness of the application. I will therefore not address any of those arguments on the merits of the sponsorship application. [ 18 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] raises numerous reasons why the Decision is unreasonable. He argues the Officer ignored evidence of the Temporary Policy, failed to consider the totality of the evidence, which included the applicability of the Temporary Policy, that the Officer acted in a way that is contrary to law by not applying the Temporary Policy, and that the Decision does not in any way mention that the program related to the Temporary Policy was full. [ 19 ] As mentioned above in the Background, there is no evidence that Mr. [APPELLANT] complied with the procedural instructions and requirements of the Temporary Policy under which Mr. [APPELLANT] wanted his application to be considered. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s claim that his application was submitted in accordance with the Temporary Policy’s stipulations is without basis on the record. My careful review of the Certified Tribunal Record and of the Applicant’s Record reveals no evidence of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s compliance with the specific email subject line that would have placed his application within the Temporary Policy stream of Afghan sponsorship applications by a [COMPANY], rather than the regular stream of Afghan overseas sponsorship applications requiring an RSD document. In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Officer to treat Mr. [APPELLANT]’s sponsorship application as one that requires an RSD document. [ 20 ] The evidence before the Court shows that the Temporary Policy was full and expired as of December 1, 2022, four days before Mr. [APPELLANT] submitted his application on December 5, 2022: [APPELLANT] affidavit, Exhibit “B” , copy of the [NAME] notes. The IRCC public facing website also notes that “[a]fter the expiry date of October 17, 2023 (11:59pm, Pacific Time), or once applications for 3,000 individuals have been entered into processing, applications received under this public policy will be returned.” : [NAME] affidavit, Exhibit “A” , IRCC website. Given the timing and circumstances of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s sponsorship application, it was not unreasonable for the Officer to consider it under the regular stream of overseas sponsorship applications as opposed to the Temporary Policy stream. It was thus reasonable for the Officer not to mention that the Temporary Policy that had expired prior to Mr. [APPELLANT]’s submitting his application. B. Was the Decision procedurally unfair to Mr. [APPELLANT] by not giving him notice and allowing him the opportunity to correct his application? [ 21 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] argues that procedural fairness demands that he be heard and submits the Officer breached procedural fairness by concluding that Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application was incomplete without seeking submissions from him on this issue. He states he was given no opportunity to respond to the refusal letter, particularly with respect to the completeness of his application under the Temporary Policy. Mr. [APPELLANT] highlights that his Settlement Plan was detailed and complete and argues that there is ample evidence in this case that he was eligible under the Temporary Policy. [ 22 ] The Minister submits that there is no basis in law for Mr. [APPELLANT]’s claim that the Officer was required to do Mr. [APPELLANT]’s due diligence and open a dialogue with him concerning missing documentation, prior to returning the application for incompleteness. The Minister argues [NAME] provide that the Officer is to return the application without processing, not caution an applicant about an issue and prompt the correction of the deficiency: IRPR at s. 12. [ 23 ] I agree with the Minister. [NAME] clearly provides no additional steps to be taken by an officer when an application does not include the required elements at s. 10 of [NAME], which specifically state that an application must include all information and documents required by [NAME] as well as any other evidence required by the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27. In this case, [NAME] requires an RSD document be submitted under s. 153(1)(b), absent which an officer shall return the application to an applicant pursuant to s. 12 of [NAME]. [ 24 ] As such, I find Mr. [APPELLANT]’s procedural fairness argument to be without any merit. C. Should the Court exercise its residual discretion not to grant judicial review because the requested remedy – redetermination – would be futile? [ 25 ] Even if I had found Mr. [APPELLANT] had complied with the requirements of the Temporary Policy and that the Decision was either unreasonable or procedurally unfair to Mr. [APPELLANT], I would have exercised my residual discretion not to grant judicial review because the remedy sought – redetermination – in this matter would be futile. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application would not have been put into processing under the Temporary Policy as the application was submitted 4 days after the program had reached capacity. [ 26 ] As pointed out by the Federal Court of Appeal, an important factor in the Court exercising its remedial discretion is whether a quashing of the decision under review would have any practical effect. In circumstances where the administrator could not reasonably reach a different decision, sending the matter back would have no practical significance and so a remedy should not be granted. Caution must be exercised and any doubt resolved in favour of sending the matter back: [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FCA 24 at para 17. [ 27 ] In this case, setting aside the Officer’s Decision and sending the matter back for redetermination would have no practical significance given that at the date Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application was submitted to IRCC on December 5, 2022, the program had reached capacity. As such, the Temporary Policy was closed on December 1, 2022, and remains closed as of this date. There is no doubt in my mind as to the outcome before the IRCC if ever I had decided to send this matter back for redetermination. [ 28 ] Considering the remedy would have no practical significance and all of the relevant circumstances of this case, I would have exercised my discretion against granting judicial review and sending the matter back for determination.

VII. Conclusion [ 29 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. While Mr. [NAME] is unsuccessful in his application for judicial review, I note, as did the Officer before me, that Mr. [APPELLANT] is not left without recourse as he may resubmit a new and complete sponsorship application if he so wishes.

JUDGMENT in IMM-15783-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The Application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-15783-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: MAY 27, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: MAY 28, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [APPELLANT] [NAME], ON For The Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF [APPELLANT], ON For The Respondent