Federal Court Rejects Claimant's Judicial Review on Family Class Sponsorship

Date: 20260706 Docket: IMM-4523-25 Citation: 2026 FC 905 Ottawa, Ontario, July 6, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [NAME], is a citizen of Nigeria. Her father, [NAME] [[NAME]], sought to sponsor her as a member of the family class. The sponsorship application was refused and, in a decision dated February 14, 2025, the Immigration Appeal Division [[NAME]] dismissed the appeal. [ 2 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], of [NAME]’s decision, arguing that [NAME] failed to consider relevant evidence and made determinations that contradict the evidence. The Respondent submits [NAME]’s decision is justified in light of the constraining jurisprudence and legislation. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background [ 4 ] [NAME] became a permanent resident under the PV2 economic class in December 2018, and a Canadian citizen in November 2022. The Applicant applied for permanent residence [PR] as a member of the family class in July 2023. [NAME] applied to sponsor her. The Applicant was 19 years old at the time of the application. [ 5 ] On December 16, 2024, an immigration officer with [NAME] [the Officer] refused the Applicant’s PR application. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant met the definition of a “dependent child” set out at section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], nor that she had been declared as a family member in [NAME]’s own PR application. The Officer determined that the Applicant had not been examined and therefore was excluded as a member of the family class pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR. The Officer also noted there was a temporary [NAME] that provides for certain exemptions to paragraph 117(9)(d) [[NAME]] – specifically, allowing “a person who came to Canada (as a resettled refugee, was conferred refugee protection in Canada or were themselves sponsored as a spouse, partner or dependent child) to sponsor undeclared immediate family members” – but found that the Applicant did not meet the [NAME] requirements. [ 6 ] [NAME] appealed the Officer’s refusal to [NAME]. He submitted letters from his counsel explaining that, at the time of his PR application, he had only recently learned the Applicant was his daughter, that he had been uncertain of the Applicant’s paternity, and therefore that he had not declared the Applicant in his application. [NAME] also provided: a DNA paternity test confirming his relation to the Applicant; proof of his financial support of the Applicant in the form of the Applicant’s bank statements disclosing periodic transfers between himself and the Applicant; a sworn affidavit of relationship dated November 5, 2018, stating that the Applicant is his biological daughter; and photographs with the Applicant from December 2023.

III. Decision Under Review [ 7 ] [NAME] dismissed [NAME]’s appeal in a decision dated February 14, 2025. [ 8 ] [NAME] accepted the explanation given by [NAME] for not including the Applicant in his PR application – that he had doubts regarding the Applicant’s paternity at the time and that including the Applicant would have been problematic for his current marriage – but noted [NAME] was still required to declare her as a non-accompanying dependent. [NAME] found that, on a balance of probabilities, [NAME] did not declare the Applicant in his PR application and therefore that the Applicant is excluded as a member of the family class under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR. [ 9 ] [NAME] also found that because the Applicant was not a member of the family class, it did not have jurisdiction to assess humanitarian and compassionate [[NAME]] considerations. [NAME] noted that [NAME] nonetheless had recourse to an application for PR on [NAME] grounds under section 25 of the IRPA.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 10 ] This application raises a single issue – Is [NAME]’s decision reasonable? [ 11 ] A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [ Vavilov ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at para 8 [ [NAME] ]). The party challenging a decision has the burden of demonstrating to a reviewing court “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” ( Vavilov at para 100).

V. Analysis [ 12 ] Relying on subsections 12(1) of the IRPA and 117(1) of the IRPR – provisions which define members of the family class on the basis of their relationship to a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, a definition that includes children – the Applicant argues that, [NAME] being a Canadian citizen and she being his dependent child, she is a member of the family class. The Applicant submits [NAME] ignored evidence and “reached conclusions that contradict the evidence; chose speculation over the evidence; and fettered [its] discretion.” The Applicant further submits [NAME] erred by (1) relying on [NAME]’s failure to declare her as a non-accompanying dependent in his PR application to refuse the appeal and (2) failing to have regard for equitable and [NAME] considerations, including the best interests of the child. Finally, the Applicant argues that as a member of the family class, she meets the eligibility requirements of the [NAME] because [NAME] was unaware she was his daughter at the time of submitting his PR application. [ 13 ] The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. [ 14 ] Section 117 of the IRPR sets out who may be considered a member of the family class in the context of PR sponsorship applications. Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR limits sponsorship in certain cases: Excluded relationships Restrictions 117 (9) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if 117 (9) Ne sont pas considérées comme appartenant à la catégorie du regroupement familial du fait de leur relation avec le répondant les personnes suivantes : […] […] (d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined. d) sous réserve du paragraphe (10), dans le cas où le répondant est devenu résident permanent à la suite d’une demande à cet effet, l’étranger qui, à l’époque où cette demande a été faite, était un membre de la famille du répondant n’accompagnant pas ce dernier et n’a pas fait l’objet d’un contrôle. [ 15 ] It is not disputed that [NAME] failed to declare the Applicant as a non-accompanying dependent child in his PR application. [ADDRESS] has held that paragraph 117(9)(d) is a “strict provision” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 133 at para 55 [ [NAME] ]) – “[n]on-disclosed, non-accompanying family members cannot be admitted as members of the family class” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2008 FC 32 at para 32; emphasis added). [ 16 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s argument that evidence was ignored, [NAME] did acknowledge the evidence before it, including the explanation provided for failing to identify the Applicant as a non-accompanying dependent and that the DNA test provided “confirms that the Applicant is [[NAME]’s] biological daughter,” but found that despite the circumstances “[s]ection 117(9)(d) of the Regulations requires that someone applying for PR status in Canada must include all non-accompanying dependents without exception.” [ 17 ] Having reasonably found, on a balance of probabilities, that [NAME] did not declare the Applicant in his PR application, [NAME] did not err in then concluding the Applicant was excluded as a member of the family class pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d). [NAME]’s finding is one that is clearly justified in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints bearing upon it ( Vavilov at para 85; [NAME] at para 8). The considerations raised by the Applicant – including the IRPA objective of family reunification and the absence of fraudulent intent – do not alter the operation of paragraph 117(9)(d) of the IRPR. [ 18 ] Nor did [NAME] err in finding it lacked the jurisdiction to assess [NAME] considerations, including the best interests of the child. Section 65 of the IRPA expressly precludes [NAME] from doing so in the context of a sponsorship appeal under subsection 63(1) of the IRPA where, as in this instance, it has found that a PR applicant is not a member of the family class. Contrary to the Applicant’s submission, [NAME] was not required to consider [NAME] relief ( [NAME] at para 54). [ 19 ] Similarly, the Applicant’s reliance on the [NAME] exemption that was addressed, but found not to apply, in the initial Officer’s decision is of no assistance. First, as noted by the Officer, the policy is of no application, [NAME] having become a permanent resident under the PV2 economic class, not as a refugee claimant or a sponsored applicant himself. Second, the Officer’s finding in this regard was not challenged before [NAME], and therefore the argument is not properly before this Court on judicial review. [ 20 ] The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that [NAME]’s decision is unreasonable. [ 21 ] On a final matter, and one unrelated to the merits of this application, counsel for the Respondent noted at the conclusion of oral submissions that the Applicant’s written reply submissions contained mismatched authorities – styles of cause not corresponding to neutral citations, authorities not supporting the proposition for which they were relied upon, and cases cited not relevant to the issues before the Court. [ 22 ] Counsel for the Applicant acknowledged the improperly cited jurisprudence and explained that the inaccuracies were the result of errors, but counsel did not elaborate on how the errors occurred. I do, however, note that the inaccuracies are consistent with the types of errors that have been identified where a party has placed some reliance on generative artificial intelligence [AI] and has failed to verify the information generated. [ 23 ] In the absence of a clear explanation as to the cause of the inaccurate citations, I am not in a position to conclude those errors arise from the undeclared use of AI. However, the situation does provide the opportunity to once again remind counsel that where any document submitted to the Court includes content created or generated by AI, the Court requires the use of AI be disclosed in the form of a declaration ( Notice to the Parties and the Profession on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings , dated May 7, 2024). Failure to comply invites the imposition of costs consequences or other sanctions on counsel ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2025 FC 1138 at paras 9–14, 16).

VI. Conclusion [ 24 ] The application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 25 ] Neither Party has proposed a serious question of general importance for certification, and I agree that none arise.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-4523-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified. “Patrick Gleeson” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4523-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: May 27, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: GLEESON J. DATED: JULY 6, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors Winnipeg, Manitoba For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba For The Respondent