New Federal Court Ruling Changes Key Aspect of Immigration Law

In recent years, Canadian Immigration law has developed rapidly. Regulations and programs constantly change, and the governmental goals for Canadian immigration have evolved from year to year, as seen in cursory looks at the last few Immigration Levels Plans. Most changes to Canada immigration come through government regulations and updates to existing programs, instituted by the Government of Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. For example, the focus on reducing the number of temporary residents in Canada has led the Government of Canada to institute study permit caps and expand other programs to promote the acceptance of permanent residents into Canada.

However, other changes in immigration law can come from the courts, which are tasked with interpreting the regulations and rules promulgated by the government. A December 2025 decision from the Federal Court is an example of how immigration law can be changed through the courts, and it will have ramifications for many people who intend to immigrate to Canada.

Devgon v. Canada: How This Landmark Decision Changes Canadian Immigration Law

The case of Devgon v. Canada was decided on December 18, 2025, by the Honourable Justice Battista. The decision in this case has changed Canadian immigration law in a way that should benefit many Canadian immigration applicants.

How IRCC Policies on Incomplete Applications Impacted the Devgon Family Sponsorship

The case of Devgon came to action due to a returned family sponsorship application from the Applicant, Preet Kamal Devgon. Preet sought to apply to have her parents, Jasvir Singh and Kuldeep Kaur, join her in Canada by sponsoring them for permanent residency.

The Applicants received an invitation to apply in 2024, completed the sponsorship application, and submitted it. They were sent a request for additional information by the immigration officer, who advised the Applicants that documents were missing from their applications, including resumes/CVs dating back to age 18. They were recommended to submit CVs with no chronological gaps. The Applicants submitted their CVs. One of the CVs had a one-year chronological gap. Then, the officer returned the application as incomplete. The Applicants then submitted a request for reconsideration to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, along with a complete CV with no chronological gaps. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada refused the request. The Applicants then sought Judicial Review of their application.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s Handling of Incomplete Applications

Having an application returned is highly harmful to immigration applicants. As part of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s processing rules, it is standard practice that when an immigration application is returned as incomplete, the situation is treated as if no application had been received in the first place. Returning an application of incomplete stops the continued processing of the application, and expunges the invitation to apply, which in many cases is the threshold for actually using it. This significantly delays or even prevents applicants from obtaining status. This policy from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada likely arose from a desire to improve efficiency in application processing. That is, by requiring applicants to complete their applications at the risk of return, it was to ensure that applicants submitted completed applications, thus reducing the administrative work entailed when an officer must request clarifications or additional information from applications.

However, in many cases, such as the one at hand, this can be enormously prejudicial to the applicants. For example, applicants who submitted an interest-to-sponsor form for the parents and grandparents program in 2020 were issued invitations to apply over a short period, from July 28, 2025, to October 9, 2025. Applications are no longer being accepted. Applicants to this program who have an application returned for incompleteness, such as those in Devgon, effectively lose their ability to apply for permanent residence under the program, as they cannot just reapply.

The Core Legal Finding

Justice Battista found that the question in this case is whether it was reasonable to return the Applicants’ application as incomplete when measured against the definition of a complete application in the relevant processing instruments. First, it was determined that the Applicants’ challenge was justiciable. This means it is an issue subject to argument. Justice Battista found the issue was justiciable because it affected the Applicants’ rights and caused prejudice.

Once it was found that the issue was justiciable, the reasonableness of the officer’s decision was assessed. Justice Battista found the decision to return the application as incomplete was unreasonable. The unmet requirement that caused the application to be returned, being the gap of one year on the CV, was unreasonable, as while a CV was required as part of the document checklist, there was no explicit requirement on the document checklist that the CV have no chronological gaps. The officer was found to have imported this requirement into the definition of a CV. The lack of an explicit requirement was telling, as other documents on the checklist explicitly state that there must be no gaps in time. It was determined that the officer did not unilaterally have the authority to add requirements to the definition of a completed application. It was further decided, as part of the decision, that a procedural fairness letter is not a legally authorized instrument to define a complete application.

The final order set aside the return of the application for incompleteness and ordered that the application be returned to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada for reconsideration by a different officer.

Ramifications for the Future of Immigration Applications

However, this recent ruling that the return of immigration applications for incompleteness is a justiciable issue means that when applications are returned for incompleteness, the decision can be challenged because it results in prejudice and violates the rule of law. This should allow immigration applicants greater ability to challenge if their applications are deemed incomplete under the requirements for their applications. Where requirements are not explicitly stated, officers cannot impute them; if they have, that decision can be challenged.

It is still best practice for people who want to immigrate to Canada to submit a proper, complete application to the program they apply to, as even with this change in the law, it is not advisable to risk an application being returned. Potential applicants to Canada should strongly consider retaining legal representation to help ensure they submit a complete application.

Garson Immigration Lawyers: Navigating Your Canadian Immigration Journey with Expert Guidance

The decision in Devgon v. Canada highlights the importance of ensuring every detail of your immigration application meets official requirements without falling victim to overly broad administrative hurdles. At Garson Immigration Law, our talented immigration lawyers are highly experienced in helping clients navigate these complex legal developments. We offer honest, trusted opinions and work closely with prospective newcomers to increase the chances of a successful application. Our team develops effective, pragmatic solutions for all immigration matters, including permanent residence, citizenship, and U.S. immigration. If you are concerned about your application status or have had an application returned, please reach out to us for a confidential consultation. You can contact us online or call us directly at 416-321-2860.