Devgon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
Ms. Devgon was invited, through the Parents and Grandparents Program lottery, to submit a sponsorship application for her parents. An officer sent a procedural fairness letter asking for a CV without gaps. The applicants replied, but one CV still showed a one-year gap, and the officer returned the entire application as incomplete. When the family asked IRCC to reconsider and supplied a gapless CV, the request was refused and the application stayed returned. IRCC treats a returned application as though it was never received, and because the program is invitation-based and limited, there was no assurance that a fresh invitation would follow.
What the Court Decided
Justice Battista granted the judicial review. IRCC argued that a return for incompleteness is not something the Court can review at all, because it does not affect rights and so is not a reviewable 'matter' under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act. The Court disagreed on these facts: the invitation gave the family a right to apply, and the return took away that route, so the decision could be reviewed. The Court reasoned that treating returns as outside judicial review would leave executive action unchecked. On the merits, the officer relied on a requirement, a gapless CV, that is not part of what the official rules list as a complete application, and a procedural fairness letter cannot add to what makes an application complete. The return was set aside and the matter sent to a different officer. The Court did not need to decide the refusal of the reconsideration request, and it noted that the officer could have refused the application for non-compliance and that a gap in a form that must be gapless might have justified a return.
Thousands of applications are returned each year under the incompleteness rules, and applicants often assume the Court cannot help. This decision is widely reported as opening the door to a court challenge in the right case, and it sits alongside decisions that close it, which makes it essential reading when deciding what to do after a return.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓IRCC returned your sponsorship or other application as incomplete after you responded to a request for more documents.
- ✓The reason given for the return is a document or detail that does not appear in the official checklist or instructions.
- ✓You were told a returned application is not reviewable and cannot be challenged in court.
Key Takeaways
- Returns for incompleteness are not automatically beyond the Court's reach; whether the Court will review one depends on whether the return was authorised by the legislation and the rules.
- An officer cannot use a procedural fairness letter to create a new completeness requirement that the official instructions do not contain.
- Where the applicant's right to apply depends on a limited invitation, losing that application can be the type of prejudice that makes the return reviewable.