Federal Court Partially Grants Judicial Review for Family Sponsorship Application

Date: 20260223 Docket: IMM-19376-24 Citation: 2026 FC 250 Ottawa, Ontario, February 23, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] [NAME] (the “[NAME]” ), his wife [NAME] (the “[NAME]” ) and their eldest child [NAME] (the “[NAME]” ), collectively “the Applicants” seek judicial review of the decision of a migration officer (the “Officer” ) refusing the family sponsorship application filed in respect of the Applicants, by [NAME]. The application requested the positive exercise of discretion on humanitarian and compassionate ( “H and C” ) grounds pursuant to subsection 25 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act” ). [ 2 ] [NAME] was born in India. He married on July 23, 1995, and his first child was born on May 20, 1998. [NAME] landed in Canada on June 7, 1998. He did not declare the Applicants on that application, and they were not examined. [NAME] became a Canadian citizen on March 1, 2004. [ 3 ] [NAME] resides in Canada with two other children of the family. Those children are [NAME]. [ 4 ] In March of 2022, [NAME] made a family sponsorship application for permanent residence on behalf of his wife and their eldest child. He specifically asked for consideration of H and C factors, including the best interests of his children, including children who are [NAME]. [ 5 ] The [NAME] is a citizen of India. She is residing in Saudi Arabia on a temporary basis with three of her children, two of whom are minors. The third child is an adult. All three children are [NAME], by birth, since their father is a Canadian citizen. [ 6 ] The [NAME] was aged 23 at the lock-in date. He lives in Australia. [ 7 ] A procedural fairness letter was sent to the Applicants. According to the Global Case Management System ( “GCMS” ) notes, the Officer was waiting for a response to that letter before addressing H and C factors which, in this case, included the best interests of the children, [NAME]’s establishment in Canada, insecurity of their status in Saudi Arabia, risks associated with living in Saudia Arabia and family reunification. [ 8 ] The Applicants replied to the procedural fairness letter on July 17, 2024. [ 9 ] In the decision, made on August 14, 2024, the Officer determined that the Applicants were excluded from the definition of the “family class” pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227) (the “Regulations” ) since neither was examined at the time [NAME] applied for permanent residence. As well, the Officer found that the [NAME] is not a “dependent child” as defined in section 2 of the Regulations. [ 10 ] The Officer also found that there were insufficient grounds for the positive exercise of discretion on H and C grounds, noting among other things that the [NAME] and the three children residing with her in Saudi Arabia were citizens of India and could achieve the goal of family reunification by relocating in that country. The Officer also observed that the family could reunite in Saudi Arabia. The Officer also noted the lack of social and cultural ties of the Applicants to Canada. [ 11 ] The Applicants now argue that, among other things, the Officer unreasonably discounted the evidence of the establishment of [NAME] in Canada and unreasonably focused on family reunification in India or Saudi Arabia when family reunification in Canada is a specific goal set out in the Act. [ 12 ] As well, the Applicants submit that the Officer breached their right to procedural fairness by consulting extrinsic evidence about country conditions in Saudi Arabia without giving them the opportunity to respond to that evidence. [ 13 ] The Applicants also argue that the failure of the Officer to interview them breached their rights to procedural fairness. [ 14 ] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent” ) first raises an objection to the standing of [NAME] to bring this application for judicial review and otherwise, argues that the decision is reasonable. [ 15 ] The objection to the role of [NAME] in this application is based upon subsection 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7) and which provides as follows: Application for judicial review 18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought. Demande de contrôle judiciaire 18.1 (1) Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la demande. [ 16 ] The Applicants did not make substantive arguments in response to this argument. [ 17 ] Although the Respondent had the right to object to the participation of [NAME] in this application for judicial review, her arguments do not change the substance of the challenge made by the Applicants. [ 18 ] [NAME] is not “directly affected” by the decision of the Officer. His interest in the application is a “personal” interest which does not give him standing. [ 19 ] Any issue of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339. [ 20 ] Following the decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, the merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness. [ 21 ] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” , see Vavilov, supra , at paragraph 99. [ 22 ] It is not necessary for me to address all the arguments of the Applicants about the merits of the decision. I agree with the submissions that the Officer unreasonably ignored section 3 of the Act which addressed the goal of family reunification and unreasonably focused on family reunification in two other countries. [ 23 ] Paragraph 3(1)(d) provides as follows: 3 (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are… (d) to see that families are reunited in Canada 3 (1) En matière d’immigration, la présente loi a pour objet… d) de veiller à la réunification des familles au Canada; [ 24 ] In my opinion, the Officer’s refusal of the application on H and C grounds was unreasonable. [ 25 ] In my opinion, the fact that the [NAME] “may” move to India with her children is irrelevant to [NAME]’s application for the reunification of his family in Canada where he is a citizen. [ 26 ] I am satisfied that the Officer reasonably addressed the situation of the [NAME]. The evidence shows that he is living independently in Australia. It is open to this Applicant to apply for permanent residence in Canada in the usual way. [ 27 ] I am satisfied that there was no breach of procedural fairness as argued by the Applicants. [ 28 ] The application for judicial review will be allowed in part. The negative decision with respect to the [NAME] will be set aside and the matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination. The application for judicial review with respect to [NAME] and the [NAME] will be dismissed. The style of cause will be amended with immediate effect to remove [NAME] as an applicant. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-19376-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is allowed in part. The application on behalf of the [NAME] is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different officer for redetermination. The application on behalf of the [NAME] is dismissed. The style of cause is hereby amended to remove [NAME] as an applicant.

5. There is no question for certification. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-19376-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] ET AL v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: toronto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 25, 2025

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: February 23, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT