IRCC returned a parent sponsorship application over a one-year CV gap

Overview

IRCC returned a parent sponsorship application over a one-year CV gap

Preet Kamal Devgon received an invitation to sponsor her parents for permanent residence. IRCC returned the application after finding a one-year gap in her father’s CV. The Federal Court held that the published checklist required a CV but did not say it had to be gapless, set aside the return and sent the file to a different officer for continued processing.

What happened

After Ms. Devgon was invited to sponsor her parents, IRCC returned the application because her father’s CV omitted one year.Source [1]

Preet Kamal Devgon submitted a sponsorship application with the permanent-residence applications of her parents, Jasvir Singh and Kuldeep Kaur.

An officer asked for CVs covering the period from age 18 without gaps. The family responded, but one CV still omitted a year. IRCC returned the application as incomplete and later said there was no application to reconsider, even after the family supplied a corrected CV.

Why the return mattered

The return did more than create extra paperwork: it could cost the family the invitation needed to apply.Source [1]Source [4]

Ms. Devgon had already crossed the program’s invitation threshold. Returning the package could put the family back outside a limited program with no assurance of another invitation. The Court found that this affected their legal interests and caused more than administrative inconvenience.

What the family argued

They said IRCC had returned the application for breaching a rule that did not appear in the governing checklist.Source [1]Source [2]

The family said the application contained the required CV and neither the regulations nor the checklist said it had to account for every month. The checklist demanded a gapless history in another form, but used different wording for the CV.

They also criticized former counsel’s handling of the request. The Court did not decide that allegation because the officer’s authority resolved the case.

What the Minister argued

The Minister said an incomplete package had never become an application and its return was not a reviewable decision.Source [1]

On that view, IRCC had only screened the package, leaving nothing for the Federal Court to set aside or for the department to reconsider. The Minister relied on the request for a corrected CV and the remaining gap.

What the Court decided

The Court found the return reviewable and unreasonable, set it aside and sent the application to a different officer.Source [1]

Justice Battista held that judicial review was available because the family had received an invitation and faced real prejudice when IRCC returned the application. Calling it a completeness decision did not make it immune from review.

A valid completeness finding needed an unbroken link from the regulations to an authorized form, checklist or other instrument. That link was missing.

Why the CV gap was not a completeness rule

The checklist required a CV, but it did not say the CV itself had to contain an unbroken chronology.Source [1]Source [2]

The same checklist expressly prohibited time gaps in Schedule A, but did not attach that wording to the CV requirement.

The request for a corrected CV could seek useful information, but it could not add a new condition to the legal definition of a complete application. Failure to provide information might have other consequences; it did not justify this return on an unwritten rule.

What the result actually meant

The family recovered the opportunity to have the application processed; the Court did not approve permanent residence.Source [1]

The Court directed that the application continue before a different officer. Eligibility, admissibility and the other sponsorship requirements still had to be assessed; the judgment did not order IRCC to issue permanent-resident visas.

Our analysis: how this dispute might have been avoided

Supplying a corrected, gapless CV before the deadline was the simplest practical response, even though the Court later found that the gap was not a lawful completeness ground. That is our reading of the reasons—not a finding about former counsel or a prediction for another case.Source [1]

A request from IRCC should not be ignored merely because its legal basis seems uncertain. Answer fully where possible and obtain advice if compliance is impossible or the officer appears to be adding a mandatory condition.

After a return, preserve the invitation, delivery records, filed package and all correspondence. A reconsideration request does not stop a Federal Court filing deadline.

• Check every timeline for unexplained months before submission.
• Respond to document requests directly and within the stated time.
• Keep the invitation, checklist version and exact package that was filed.
• Treat a return that may erase an invitation as a time-sensitive legal event.

What this case does not say

• That every omitted date or missing document is harmless.
• That applicants may disregard an officer’s request for information.
• That every returned application will qualify for judicial review.
• That the Court found former counsel incompetent.
• That the parents received permanent residence or Canadian citizenship.

Where this sits on the path to Canadian citizenship

The case concerned the parents’ chance to continue a permanent-residence application, not a citizenship application.

If the parents are eventually approved and become permanent residents, they may later pursue Canadian citizenship only after independently meeting the citizenship requirements. The immediate lesson is narrower: an unlawful return should not remove an invited family’s chance to complete the immigration process.