Federal Court Sets Major Precedent on Incomplete Immigration Applications
In a landmark decision with wide-reaching implications for Canada’s immigration system, the Federal Court has confirmed that applicants have the legal right to challenge the return of immigration applications deemed “incomplete” by immigration officers.
This ruling marks a significant shift in how such decisions are viewed under Canadian administrative law, particularly in a system where application intake is tightly controlled and missed opportunities may never return.
Why a Returned Application Can Be Devastating
Under Canada’s current immigration framework, when an application is returned as incomplete, it is treated as though it was never submitted. Unlike a refusal, which can often be appealed or refiled, a returned application may permanently close the door—especially for programs that operate through limited invitations or lotteries.
The court recognized that, in practice, a return for incompleteness can function as a final and irreversible refusal.
The Case That Changed the Landscape
The ruling arose from a family sponsorship case involving a Canadian sponsor who had been selected through the Parents and Grandparents Program (PGP), a program known for its limited intake and lottery-based invitations.
After receiving an invitation to sponsor her parents, the applicant submitted the required permanent residence application. During processing, an immigration officer requested additional documentation, including a curriculum vitae with no chronological gaps.
Although the applicants responded to the request, the officer later returned the entire application as incomplete due to a one-year gap in one of the submitted CVs.
Reconsideration Refused, Door Closed
Following the return, the applicants promptly submitted a reconsideration request along with a corrected, gapless CV. Immigration authorities refused to reconsider, stating that once an application is returned as incomplete, it is no longer eligible for processing.
Because the sponsorship invitation had been issued through a lottery system, there was no guarantee the sponsor would ever receive another chance. The return effectively blocked the parents’ ability to pursue permanent residence.
Court Confirms Right to Judicial Review
Immigration authorities argued that the decision to return an application for incompleteness was not subject to court review, claiming it did not affect legal rights or cause prejudice.
The Federal Court firmly rejected this argument.
The judge ruled that once an applicant receives an invitation under Canada’s immigration legislation, they acquire a legal right to submit an application. Returning that application as incomplete directly interferes with that right and can cause serious prejudice.
Declaring such decisions immune from review, the court noted, would undermine the rule of law and permit unchecked administrative power.
Decision Found to Be Unreasonable
After confirming the court had jurisdiction to review the case, the judge examined whether the officer’s decision itself was reasonable.
The court found it was not.
While the officer had demanded a CV without gaps, the official application requirements for the Parents and Grandparents Program do not list gapless CVs as a condition for a complete application.
The court emphasized that a procedural fairness letter cannot create new completeness requirements. Only formally authorized checklists and regulations define whether an application is complete.
As a result, the officer applied an incorrect standard, making the return of the application unreasonable.
Application Ordered Back Into Processing
The court set aside the decision to return the application and ordered that it be sent back to immigration authorities for processing by a different officer.
Because the initial return was deemed unreasonable, the court found it unnecessary to separately assess the refusal to reconsider the application.
Important Clarification for Applicants
The court also clarified an important distinction: certain forms, such as the Schedule A background declaration, explicitly require no gaps and may justify a return if incomplete. However, CVs do not carry the same requirement unless clearly stated in official documentation.
In this case, the officer could have refused the application for non-compliance but was not justified in returning it as incomplete.
Why This Ruling Matters
This decision establishes that immigration officers’ completeness determinations are not beyond legal scrutiny—especially when those decisions effectively end an applicant’s chance to immigrate.
For applicants navigating capped programs, lotteries, and limited intake streams, this ruling reinforces accountability and fairness in Canada’s immigration system.
For a consultation about Immigration options, reach out to the CAD IMMIGRATION today!
