Federal Court Rejects TRP Application Due to Immigration History

Date: 20260619 Docket: IMM-4847-25 Citation: 2026 FC 835 Ottawa, Ontario, June 19, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision [the Decision] by an [NAME] [[NAME]] officer [the Officer] refusing the Applicant’s application for a Temporary Resident Permit [TRP] pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [ IRPA ]. [ 2 ] Having considered the record before the Court, the parties’ submissions, both written and oral, and having considered the applicable jurisprudence, I conclude that the Applicant has not established that the Decision is unreasonable. There is therefore no basis for the Court to interfere with the Decision. The Applicant’s application is dismissed for the reasons that follow.

II. Background [ 3 ] The Applicant, [NAME], is a citizen of India. He is married. His wife and children reside in India and have resided there since May 2017. The Applicant and his family used to reside in Greece until May 2017, where the Applicant had been employed as a fish cannery worker. [ 4 ] The Applicant entered Canada on May 14, 2017, as a visitor. He later obtained a work permit issued on October 18, 2017, that was valid until October 17, 2019, which allowed him to work in Canada as a general farm worker. He applied for a new Labour Market Impact Assessment-based work permit on October 16, 2019. That application was refused on January 23, 2020. [ 5 ] The Applicant asserts that he was advised that he could apply to restore his temporary resident status within 90 days of the January 23, 2020, refusal of his work permit application. He asserts that: a) he was unable to do so because his Indian passport was expiring prior to the expiry of the 90-day period; b) he was advised to renew his passport before applying for the restoration of his temporary resident status; c) COVID-19-related delays affected the passport renewal process in that he could not fly to the Indian embassy in Ottawa to renew his passport in person, and other means of passport renewal would not have led to the renewal of his passport prior to the expiry of the 90-day restoration application time frame; and, d) his renewed Indian passport was issued after the restoration period had expired. [ 6 ] The Applicant subsequently applied again for the restoration of his temporary resident status without success. The Applicant remained in Canada after having lost his status and has remained in Canada without status since 2020. The Applicant admits that he does not provide financially for his family and has not since at least May 2024 because he cannot work legally in Canada. [ 7 ] In May 2024, the Applicant applied from inside Canada for a TRP and an open work permit. His submissions included humanitarian and compassionate considerations. [ 8 ] The Applicant’s application materials addressed several topics including: a) his work history; b) his establishment in Canada; c) his community ties; d) support for him to remain in Canada from members of the [NAME]; e) the psychological stress he suffers as a result of his immigration status; f) the hardship he says he will face if he is returned to India or to Greece; g) the alleged adverse conditions he would face in India; h) concerns related to his Sikh identity and perceived support for a free [NAME]; and i) the best interests of his children who reside with his wife in India and have since they left Greece. [ 9 ] Much of the material the Applicant submitted in support of his TRP application was expressed in broad and generalized terms. His submissions relied on general assertions about country conditions, hardship, family separation, and the Applicant’s ties to the [NAME], but the supporting evidence of probative value connecting those concerns to the Applicant’s particular circumstances was limited, and in many cases, bald or simply nonexistent.

III. The Decision under review [ 10 ] By letter dated February 14, 2025, the Officer refused the Applicant’s TRP application. The Decision letter stated that the Officer was not satisfied there were sufficient grounds for issuing the Applicant a temporary resident permit pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the IRPA . The Decision letter did not provide any detail of the reasoning for the Decision. [ 11 ] The Officer’s GCMS notes form part of the Decision ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2012 FC 1391 at para 51; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 193 at para 20 ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2014 FC 105 at para 3). They reflect the Officer’s reasoning and assessment of the Applicant’s application and supporting evidence in coming to the Decision. [ 12 ] The Officer stated that they carefully assessed the application, including the Applicant’s immigration history before making the Decision. The GCMS notes reflect that the Applicant’s immigration history in Canada includes: a) an LMIA specific work permit being issued on October 18, 2017, and being valid until October 17, 2019; b) an LMIA specific work permit application being filed on October 17, 2019, and later refused on January 23, 2020; c) another LMIA specific work permit application being filed on June 12, 2020, and later refused on November 9, 2020, because it was filed outside of the section 182 status restoration provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ]; d) an application for a temporary resident permit being filed on November 20, 2020, and refused on January 10, 2023; e) an application for a visitor record document being filed on May 27, 2021, and refused on November 21, 2022; f) an application for residency based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds being filed on May 8, 2024; and, finally, g) the application to remain in Canada as temporary resident permit holder pursuant to section 24 of the IRPA that was filed on May 21, 2024, and gives rise to this proceeding. [ 13 ] The Officer observed that the Applicant lost his immigration status in 2020 and chose to remain in Canada without status after his work permit application was refused in 2020. The Officer also referred to the 90-day restoration period in section 182 of the IRPR and considered that the Applicant had ample time to leave Canada to try to regularize his status from outside of Canada but failed to do so. [ 14 ] The Officer acknowledged that the Applicant requested that his TRP request be assessed on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Officer was sympathetic to the potential hardship the Applicant said he would face if required to return to India or Greece, as well as to the best interests of the Applicant’s children in India. The Officer identified the specific evidence and submissions they considered. [ 15 ] In the end, the Officer was satisfied that the Applicant would not comply with conditions imposed through TRP if one was granted. The Officer considered the Applicant’s past conduct in failing to comply with immigration conditions since 2020. They determined that a TRP was not justified in the circumstances because a TRP is not intended to be used to as it would be used here, that is, to grant the Applicant a permit that could carry greater privileges than are granted to temporary residents with a valid immigration status.

IV. Issues [ 16 ] The sole issue is whether the Decision is reasonable.

V. Standard of Review [ 17 ] The parties agree, and I with them, that the standard of review with respect to the Officer’s substantive findings is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at para 25). [ADDRESS] must read the reasons in light of the record and the administrative context, but it must not substitute its own assessment of the merits ( Vavilov at paras 91-96, 125). The assessment by an immigration officer of an applicant’s eligibility to a TRP, pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the IRPA , is a highly discretionary decision and therefore afforded a high degree of deference ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 37 at para 22; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 833 at para 22). The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable ( Vavilov at para 100).

VI. The Statutory Framework [ 18 ] Subsection 24(1) of the IRPA provides that a foreign national who, in the opinion of an officer, is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements of the IRPA becomes a temporary resident if an officer is of the opinion that it is justified in the circumstances and issues a TRP. [ 19 ] Subsection 24(1) gives officers a broad discretion. [ADDRESS] has described the purpose of subsection 24(1) as softening the sometimes harsh consequences of strict application of the IRPA where there may be compelling reasons to allow a foreign national to enter or remain in Canada despite inadmissibility or non-compliance ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2006 FC 1275 at para 22). [ 20 ] Subsection 29(2) of the IRPA requires a temporary resident to comply with imposed conditions and with the requirements of the IRPA , and to leave Canada by the end of the authorized period.

VII. Arguments and Analysis A. The Application was not a subsection 25(1) IRPA humanitarian and compassionate grounds application for an exemption, and the reasons are not to be measured as a decision based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [ 21 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to conduct a proper humanitarian and compassionate analysis. He relies on section 25 of the IRPA and argues that the Officer failed to address his establishment, hardship, psychological stress, community support, and the best interests of his children. [ 22 ] While humanitarian considerations can be relevant to a TRP application and an applicant may rely on hardship, family circumstances, establishment, or children’s interests to show that a TRP is justified under subsection 24(1) of the IRPA , that does not transform the subsection 24(1) application into an application for an exemption from the IRPA on humanitarian and compassionate grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the IRPA . The Officer was not required to conduct a humanitarian and compassionate analysis in light of the nature of the application that was before them. The Officer was required to determine whether the issue of a TRP would be justified under the circumstances, and those circumstances include an applicant’s immigration history ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 621 at paragraph 32; [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1093, at para 10 [ [NAME] ]). The officer considered the Applicant’s evidence and submissions. B. The reasons are sufficient and reflect that the Applicant’s evidence and submissions were grappled with [ 23 ] The Applicant submits that the Officer ignored the humanitarian evidence submitted because the reasons do not separately discuss his establishment, work history, community support, psychosocial evidence, hardship on return, Sikh identity, or the best interests of his children. [ 24 ] The Officer did not discuss each of these factors separately in detail in their reasons, nor were they required to. Officers are not required to refer to every piece of evidence or address every argument advanced provided the reasons show that they grappled with the central issues and the basis for the outcome can be understood ( Vavilov at paras 128; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at paras 16-17). [ 25 ] The GCMS notes show that the Officer understood the application as one advanced on humanitarian and compassionate grounds within the TRP framework. The Officer reviewed and considered the Applicant’s evidence and submissions on the grounds advanced. The Officer explicitly acknowledged the facets of the evidence and submissions filed by the Applicant, including, but without being limited to, establishment, hardship and the best interests of the Applicant’s children, and considered them all despite the paucity of information or evidence with probative value that had been submitted with respect to any of them. Indeed, a review of the record reveals that the Applicant’s submissions and evidence of humanitarian grounds were largely supported by conclusory, generic or bald evidence of little probative value. [ 26 ] The record before the Officer contained assertions of hardship and establishment, but many were stated at a high level of generality. The Applicant’s affidavit largely repeated those assertions and did not materially strengthen them with independent or specific documentary evidence. [ 27 ] The Applicant’s submissions concerning [NAME] and the adverse treatment of Sikhs in India were not supported by evidence showing that the Applicant himself had any meaningful involvement in the [NAME], or that he would personally suffer hardship as a result. The Applicant asserted during the hearing that his evidence of being a [NAME] supporter who would be at risk or would suffer hardship if returned to India was limited to the fact that he is Sikh and that every Sikh in British Columbia supports a free [NAME]. This assertion is not contained in the evidentiary record at all beyond that the Applicant is Sikh and resides in British Columbia. The Applicant’s submissions without an evidentiary foundation connecting general country conditions to the Applicant did not require more detailed treatment than was set out in the GCMS notes. The Officer acknowledged that the Applicant would face potential hardships on a return to India and then found that the application remained insufficient in light of the Applicant’s immigration history and the concern about future compliance with the IRPA . [ 28 ] The Officer’s consideration of the psychosocial evidence also did not render the Decision unreasonable. The psychosocial assessment recorded the Applicant’s account of stress and family separation driven by the uncertainty of his immigration status and efforts to remain in Canada, but otherwise contained significant advocacy-like statements and conclusions about the immigration relief sought by the Applicant and how he satisfied the requirements of the relief he sought. It is plain from a review of the psychosocial assessment tendered that it was not limited to a psychologist’s realm of expertise and constituted an exercise in advocacy. The record reflects that it was appropriate for the Officer to assess that the sought TRP was not justified on the basis of this evidence. [ 29 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer failed to meaningfully assess the best interests of his children. He relies on [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1999] 2 SCR 817. [ 30 ] The Applicant’s children live in India with their mother. The Applicant’s evidence was that he supports them financially from Canada – despite not working legally in Canada since 2024 and despite not having the means to support them financially since then – and that his return to India would affect them financially, emotionally, and mentally. The Applicant’s evidence regarding how his children’s best interests would be served by his being granted a TRP is that his children are not used to the harsh environments of the rigorous Indian school system, that he misses them, and that they would do well in Canada. None of these statements were particularized in any meaningful way in the evidence submitted. The record also showed that the family separation arose from the Applicant’s own decision to live and work abroad while his spouse and children remained in India. The Officer was required to consider the children’s interests as part of the broader assessment of whether temporary relief by the issue of a TRP was justified pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the IRPA . I am satisfied that the Officer did so. [ 31 ] The Officer’s chain of analysis is concise but is intelligible considering the record ( Vavilov, at para 137). The Officer accepted that there were sympathetic circumstances but concluded they did not overcome the concern created by the Applicant’s history of remaining in Canada without status for several years. C. The Officer reasonably relied on the Applicant’s immigration history [ 32 ] The decisive factor for the Officer was the Applicant’s immigration history. The Officer noted that the Applicant lost status in 2020, remained in Canada without status, and did not leave Canada to regularize his status. The Officer concluded that this history undermined confidence that the Applicant would comply with the conditions of a TRP and open work permit if issued. That was a relevant and rational consideration ( Rogers ); a TRP is temporary, conditional, discretionary and exceptional ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 739 at para 26; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 482 at paras 27, 31). [ 33 ] The Applicant submits that subsection 24(1) of the IRPA exists to provide relief to persons who do not meet the requirements of the IRPA . However, it does not follow that the nature, duration, or explanation for non-compliance must be ignored. The Applicant provided an explanation for how he initially fell out of status, including the timing of his work permit application, the pending LMIA, passport renewal issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic. That explanation was relevant, but the Officer was not required to find that it explained or excused the Applicant’s continued presence in Canada without status over several years. [ 34 ] The Officer did not refuse the application simply because the Applicant lacked status and did not fetter their discretion by relying on the Applicant’s immigration history. The Officer assessed this Applicant’s circumstances and concluded that a TRP was not justified. D. The Applicant’s COVID-era public policy argument [ 35 ] The Applicant’s submissions refer to a temporary public policy announced during the COVID-19 pandemic. He argues that his circumstances should have been assessed in light of that policy and the disruption caused by the pandemic. The Respondent submits that the Applicant did not qualify for the relevant public policy in any event because he did not hold valid temporary resident status at the required time. [ 36 ] I do not need to decide whether the Applicant would have qualified for that public policy. The public policy issue is relevant only as context for the Applicant’s explanation of how he came to be without status. It does not determine whether the Officer was required to issue a TRP in February 2025.

VIII. Conclusion [ 37 ] The Applicant bore the burden of establishing circumstances sufficient to justify the relief he sought. The Applicant’s belief in the force of his evidence and his disagreement with the Officer’s consideration of that same evidence does not establish that the Decision is unreasonable. [ 38 ] The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable. His application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. [ 39 ] The parties proposed no question for certification, and none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-4847-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicant’s application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question to be certified. No costs are awarded to any party. “Benoit M. Duchesne” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4847-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIDEOCONFERENCE ZOOM DATE OF HEARING: june 17, 2026

REASONS aND

JUDGMENT: duchesne, j. DATED: june 19, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], BC For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, BC For The Respondent