Immigration Win: Court Says Applicants Can Challenge Returns
Federal Court Rules Immigration Applicants Can Challenge Returned Applications for Incompleteness
In a recent legal decision that could have far-reaching consequences for many immigration hopefuls, the Federal Court of Canada has reinforced the right of applicants to challenge the return of their immigration applications due to alleged incompleteness. This landmark case, Devgon v. Canada, has set a new precedent that may change how immigration officers assess and process applications — and what recourse applicants have when things go wrong.
Key Highlights
- Federal Court confirms that immigration applicants can challenge returned applications through judicial review.
- Applicant in focus: Preet Kamal Devgon had her family sponsorship application returned due to a one-year gap in a CV.
- The court found the immigration officer’s decision to be unreasonable and not aligned with official guidelines.
- Justice Battista ruled the return of the application infringed on the applicant’s rights under Canadian immigration law.
- IRCC’s stance that such decisions are “non-justiciable” was rejected by the court.
- The application must now be re-evaluated by a new officer at IRCC.
Why This Case Matters for Canadian Immigration Applicants
If you’ve ever gone through the process of applying for permanent residence or sponsoring a family member, you’ll know how meticulous the requirements can be. One small oversight can delay or derail the entire application. For many, the worst-case scenario is having an application returned as “incomplete.” When this happens, it’s often treated as though the application was never submitted at all — and depending on the program, there may not be another chance to apply.
This is exactly what happened to Preet Kamal Devgon, who had been selected through the lottery system for the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP). She applied to sponsor her parents for permanent residence, but her application was sent back because one of the CVs included had a one-year gap. Despite later submitting a corrected, gapless version, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) refused to reconsider.
The Court’s Ruling: A Win for Applicants
Justice Battista of the Federal Court sided with Devgon. He ruled that the return of her application was not only reviewable by the courts (i.e. “justiciable”), but also that the immigration officer’s decision to return it due to a CV gap was unreasonable.
Here’s why that’s important: the requirement for a CV with no chronological gaps is not listed in the official documentation checklist for PGP applications. The officer had sent a procedural fairness letter (often referred to as a PFL) asking for a gapless CV, but the judge clarified that such a letter cannot redefine what constitutes a “complete” application.
In short, the officer made a decision based on a standard that isn’t part of the official rules — and that’s a problem.
What This Means for Future Immigration Applications
This ruling sends a strong message: immigration officers must follow official, published guidelines when evaluating applications. They can’t impose new requirements that aren’t listed in the documents or use procedural fairness letters to create new standards.
Moreover, if your application is returned as incomplete in a way that seems unfair or inconsistent with published rules, you may now have stronger legal grounds to challenge the decision in court.
Key Takeaways for Applicants
Let’s break this down into a few actionable insights:
- Know your rights: If your application is returned, you may still have recourse — don’t assume it’s the end of the road.
- Review official requirements carefully: Make sure your documents meet what’s outlined in the official IRCC checklists — not just what’s requested in additional letters.
- Consider legal support: A returned application can sometimes be challenged through a legal process like judicial review.
- Timeliness matters: Some application streams (like PGP) operate by lottery or limited intake, so missing out once could mean missing out for good. It’s crucial to get it right the first time — or act quickly if something goes wrong.
Why the Court Rejected IRCC’s Argument
IRCC argued that the officer’s decision wasn’t subject to judicial review because it didn’t legally affect Devgon’s rights. But the court disagreed. Justice Battista pointed out that once an applicant receives an invitation to apply (such as through the PGP lottery), they gain the right to submit a complete application. Returning it without proper justification essentially strips them of that right — which is a significant legal and personal consequence.
He warned that allowing such decisions to go unreviewed would give immigration officers unchecked authority, effectively bypassing the rule of law. That’s a serious concern in a system as complex and competitive as Canada’s immigration process.
What Could Have Been Done Differently?
Interestingly, the court noted that if the gap had been in the Schedule A: Background Declaration Form — which does officially require no gaps — then the application might have rightly been returned. But because the issue was instead with a CV (which does not have the same requirement), the officer’s action was deemed an overstep.
Also, while the applicants didn’t submit the gapless CV in time, the officer still had the option to refuse the application due to non-compliance — rather than return it as incomplete. These nuances can make a big difference in outcomes.
Final Thoughts
This case is a wake-up call for both applicants and immigration officials. For anyone navigating the Canadian immigration system, it reinforces the importance of understanding your rights, following official guidelines closely, and knowing when to challenge a decision.
If you’re applying under a program like the Manitoba PNP or the Parents and Grandparents Program, staying informed about recent legal decisions like this one could be critical to your success.
Thinking of applying for permanent residence in Canada? Don’t leave your future up to chance — make sure your application is complete and compliant. If you’re not sure where to start, we’re here to help.
