CASE CENTRE · IMMIGRATION LITIGATION · JUDICIAL REVIEW

Thalisetti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

2026 FC 332 Federal Court March 2026

⚠ Informational Purposes Only — Not Legal Advice

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.

In short: An officer refused a spousal-sponsorship application after concluding the sponsor should have declared the applicant as a partner during her own immigration. The Federal Court allowed the judicial review because the officer did not properly explain or support the finding that the couple were common-law partners.

The Facts

Mr. Thalisetti sought permanent residence as the partner of a sponsor in Canada. The officer refused the application under paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, which can exclude a person from the family class where they were a family member of the sponsor but were not declared and examined when the sponsor herself immigrated. The officer reached that result by treating the couple as common-law partners at that earlier time. The couple had lived in separate cities during their courtship, and the point of the case was whether the officer had properly dealt with whether they were cohabiting in a conjugal relationship back then.

What the Court Decided

Justice Aylen granted the judicial review in March 2026 and set the refusal aside. The Court found the officer's reasons did not justify the conclusion that the two were common-law partners when the sponsor immigrated. A common-law relationship requires cohabitation in a conjugal relationship, and the officer had to explain why this couple met that definition at the relevant time and had to engage with the evidence about how they lived. The officer did neither adequately, so the exclusion that depended on that finding could not stand.

Does This Affect You?

✓You were refused under the rule excluding family members who were not declared in your sponsor's own application.
✓The refusal assumed a common-law relationship in the past, but you and your partner lived apart or in different cities then.
✓You want to know whether a flawed officer finding on the relationship can be challenged in court.

Key Takeaways

Where a refusal depends on the couple having been common-law partners earlier, the officer must explain how the definition was met, including cohabitation.
Evidence about where and how the couple lived has to be addressed, not skipped.
Winning a judicial review means a fresh decision, not an automatic grant of permanent residence.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does paragraph 117(9)(d) do?

It can bar someone from the family class when they were the sponsor's family member at the time the sponsor became a permanent resident but were not declared and examined then. Whether it applies often depends on whether the couple's relationship already counted as a partnership at that time.

Does this decision mean undeclared partners can always be sponsored?

No. The Court did not say the exclusion cannot apply. It said this officer's reasoning on the common-law question was not justified, so the refusal was set aside.

Case summary written for Azimi Law's Case Centre, in the firm's own words, about 2026 FC 332. The facts and outcome should be confirmed against the full text of the decision before publication. See the disclaimer above.