Ferreria v Canada（Citizenship and Immigration）, 2026 FC 267 由 Heron Law Offices 律师代理
Immigration is a defining feature of Canada. It has contributed, and continues to contribute, to Canada’s economy and society in meaningful and enduring ways. With the exception of Indigenous Peoples, who have called these lands home since time immemorial, nearly everyone in Canada is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. [1]
Canada’s immigration system reflects this reality and aims, among other objectives, to reunite families.
Family reunification is among the central objectives of Canada’s main immigration legislation, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). This objective is implemented through various family sponsorship programs, allowing Canadian citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their spouses, partners, children, parents, and grandparents and other family members for permanent residence.
Among these programs, the Parents and Grandparents Sponsorship (PGP) program is one of the most restrictive and challenging. Sponsors must demonstrate sufficient income over several years to meet strict financial thresholds and must commit to supporting their parents or grandparents financially for an extended period after arrival. However, financial eligibility alone does not guarantee the opportunity to apply. The program operates on a lottery-based system. Interested sponsors must first submit an expression of interest and then wait to be randomly selected by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Even financially qualified sponsors may never receive an invitation.
The last time Canada opened the interest pool was in 2020. Since then, IRCC has issued invitations in limited numbers through random draws from that existing pool. For 2026, IRCC has announced that it will not open a new intake, and it remains unclear when new sponsors will again have the opportunity to express interest.
Within this already limited and competitive program, some applicants attempt to complete the process without legal assistance, believing the application to be straightforward. Unfortunately, even seemingly simple applications can involve complex and ambiguous requirements.
Background and Issue
Our client was fortunate to receive an invitation to sponsor her parents. She prepared and submitted the application in good faith. One of the required documents was a “resume” for the principal applicant and all accompanying family members aged 18 or older.
However, IRCC provides no definition of what constitutes a “complete resume” in this context. Immigration resumes are not clearly defined. Should they include hobbies, references, detailed job duties, or education transcripts, which may or may not be common features of a resume for job seeker or a university candidate? Should they be chronological or functional? Should every month be accounted for without gaps? Should the applicants indicate periods of time they were completely unemployed in their life? The application guide and checklist provide no answers.
After submission, IRCC issued a Procedural Fairness Letter, stating that the resume was incomplete and requesting a revised version. Our client complied and provided a more detailed resume, believing she had addressed the concern. Despite her efforts, the officer rejected the application and returned it, again stating that the resume was incomplete, without explaining what specific information was missing.
This raised a fundamental fairness issue in our opinion. Applicants cannot be expected to comply with requirements that are not clearly defined. Without providing guidance, definitions, templates, or examples, it is not fair to reject an application based on undisclosed completeness criteria.
We challenged this decision before the Federal Court of Canada.
Our Winning Case at the Federal Court
In a decision rendered on February 26, 2026, in Ferreria v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 267 (“Ferreria”), represented by Heron Law Offices, the Honourable Justice Thorne found that the officer’s decision was unreasonable. The Court held that the officer’s reasoning lacked transparency and intelligibility, as it failed to explain why the resume was considered incomplete.
Justice Thorne referred to the earlier decision in Devgon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2005, where the Honourable Justice Battista reached a similar conclusion. In Devgon, the Court held that when IRCC’s own instructions and checklists do not define what constitutes a complete resume, officers cannot impose their own undisclosed completeness standards and reject applications on that basis.
In Ferreria, the Court emphasized that decision-makers must provide clear and understandable reasons, especially where their decisions have serious consequences for applicants. Parents and grandparents sponsorship refusals carry particularly harsh consequences, as applicants, mainly elderly individuals, cannot simply reapply at any time due to the limited and lottery-based nature of the program.
This outcome represents an important affirmation of fairness, transparency, and accountability in Canada’s immigration system. Immigration officers have a duty to apply the law reasonably and to clearly communicate deficiencies to applicants.
However, judicial review is a lengthy and costly process. In this case, an application submitted in 2024 will only now be reconsidered in 2026, with additional processing time still ahead. This delay could have been avoided had the application been properly assessed in the first place.
This case highlights the importance of obtaining experienced legal guidance when navigating complex immigration processes. Even small ambiguities can lead to significant consequences if not addressed properly.
If you have questions about sponsoring family members or have received a refusal, our team at Heron Law Offices is available to assist.
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/campaigns/canada-future-immigration-system/context.html
