Federal Court Rejects Judicial Review Over Immigration Appeal Process

Date: 20260313 Docket: IMM-9844-24 Citation: 2026 FC 343 Toronto, Ontario, March 2, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Blackhawk BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS (delivered orally from the bench on March 2, 2026) [ 1 ] The Immigration Appeal Division ([NAME]) refused the Applicant’s appeal of the decision denying the sponsorship of her alleged child. The [NAME] and the [NAME] determined that the Applicant had not established that the child was her biological son as set out at section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Therefore, the Applicant was not a member of the family class pursuant to paragraph 117(1)(b) of the [NAME] . [ 2 ] The [NAME] disbelieved the Applicant’s evidence regarding the parental link between her and her alleged son and disbelieved the DNA results which she offered to prove parentage. The [NAME] also disbelieved the authenticity of the child’s birth certificate, including the reason why it took 18 years for the birth certificate to be issued. [ 3 ] The Applicant argues that the [NAME] decision breached procedural fairness in two ways. [ 4 ] First, the Applicant argues that she had a legitimate expectation that a DNA test would be ordered to prove her parentage. This is based on a note from the visa officer indicating that if the child’s age was verified, DNA testing would be requested. The Applicant claims that the [NAME] should have adjourned the hearing to order a DNA test. [ 5 ] I do not agree that the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that DNA testing would be ordered or that the [NAME] should have adjourned the hearing for DNA testing. The record for this Application does not establish that the visa officer made an unqualified undertaking to conduct DNA testing. In addition, I note that there is no statutory or policy requirement for DNA testing. [ 6 ] Further, the [NAME] found that DNA testing was not necessary, given its credibility concerns in respect of the evidence provided by the Applicant in support of her application. The Applicant has not challenged the reasonableness of those credibility concerns. [ 7 ] The second breach of procedural fairness relates to the Minister’s submissions to the [NAME] that included the Alternative Dispute Resolution notes. The Applicant states that she was deprived of the ability to reply to those notes, which raised concerns about the Applicant’s education documents. [ 8 ] I agree with the Respondent that the record shows the Applicant had ample advance notice of the concerns raised in respect of the educational documents. Specifically, the Applicant was alerted to those concerns in letters dated September 7, 2023 and October 20, 2023. The record illustrates that the Applicant provided written submissions to the [NAME] on March 17, 2024. The Respondent’s written submissions to the [NAME] are dated March 20, 2024. Further, there was no evidence that the Applicant attempted to file a reply to the Respondent’s submissions nor is there evidence that she was foreclosed from doing so. [ 9 ] For these reasons, there has been no breach of fairness and the application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 10 ] The Parties did not pose questions for certification and I agree that there are none.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9844-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "Julie Blackhawk" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-9844-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: CALGARY, ALBERTA DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 2, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: BLACKHAWK J. DATED: MARCH 13, 2026 APPEARANCES : Lori A. O’Reilly For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : O’Reilly Law Office Barrister and Solicitor Calgary, Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent