TRP Refusal Upheld: Federal Court Stresses Need for Hardship Evidence
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1463
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-6059-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1463
The applicant, a former student who became inadmissible to Canada, applied for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to remain and work. The immigration officer refused the TRP, finding it was not justified in the circumstances.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the officer's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that to justify a TRP, an applicant must do more than explain their past non-compliance; they must provide evidence of the difficulty or hardship they would face if required to leave Canada.
Key Quote from the Court
Crucially, the officer found that a TRP was not justified because the applicant could regularize his status from India and he had not provided any evidence that he would “experience difficulty” if he were required to do so. Given the information before the officer, which did not address this issue at all, this was an altogether reasonable conclusion. (at para 8)
Expert Takeaways
-
TRPs Require Evidence of Hardship Explaining why you fell out of status is not enough. The core of a successful TRP application is demonstrating, with concrete evidence, that a strict application of the law would cause undue hardship. You must show why you cannot simply apply from your home country.
-
Officers Won't Re-litigate Past Decisions Arguing that previous refusals (like a study permit extension or PGWP) were unfair is not an effective strategy in a TRP application. The TRP officer's role is not to review or second-guess those decisions.
-
Address the 'Why Now, Why Here' Question A TRP is a discretionary remedy for exceptional cases. Your application must directly answer why it is justified for you to remain in Canada despite your inadmissibility, rather than following the normal process of applying from abroad.
-
The Burden of Proof is on the Applicant The Court confirmed that if an applicant fails to provide evidence on a key issue-in this case, potential hardship abroad-the officer is justified in refusing the application. Do not leave critical elements of your case to the officer's imagination.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Refused for misrepresentation or credibility?
These findings can be challenged at the Federal Court. Speak with an immigration litigator today.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) rulings
Court Upholds High Bar for TRPs After PGWP Ineligibility
Court Upholds TRP Refusal, Citing History of Non-Compliance Over H&C Claims
Court Upholds TRP Refusal for Intercountry Adoption, Citing Safeguards
Federal Court: Afghan "Facilitation Letters" Are Not Visas, Crown Power Limited
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)