Court Upholds Residency Obligation: COVID-19 Not an Indefinite Excuse
- Citation
- 2025 CF 1946
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-12961-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
I.H. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 CF 1946
The applicant, a permanent resident, failed to meet his residency obligation after returning to Morocco in 2019. His application for a Permanent Resident Travel Document was refused, and the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissed his appeal, finding insufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds to excuse the breach, despite the COVID-19 pandemic.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the IAD's decision was reasonable. The Court affirmed that while pandemic travel restrictions were a valid consideration, the applicant's failure to make reasonable efforts to return to Canada after restrictions were lifted undermined his case.
Key Quote from the Court
Immigration to Canada entails obligations for newcomers and for Canadian society (paragraph 3(1)(e) of the IRPA). For permanent residents, one of these obligations is to maintain a sufficient connection with Canada by respecting the residency obligation set out in section 28 of the IRPA.
Expert Takeaways
-
Residency Obligation is a Strict Requirement Permanent resident status is not a right to be held in reserve. The Court affirmed that PR status comes with the obligation to be physically present in Canada for at least 730 days in a five-year period. Significant absences require compelling humanitarian and compassionate reasons to be excused.
-
Act Promptly When Barriers are Removed While COVID-19 travel restrictions were a valid reason for being unable to travel, this excuse has an expiry date. The IAD and the Court placed significant weight on the applicant's delay in attempting to return to Canada for many months after all travel restrictions were lifted.
-
The Onus is on the Applicant When a breach of the residency obligation is significant, the burden is on the permanent resident to demonstrate powerful H&C factors to justify retaining their status. Factors like minimal establishment, lack of close family in Canada, and a perceived intention to settle abroad will weigh heavily against the applicant.
-
Procedural Fairness in Virtual Hearings The Court confirmed that the IAD has broad discretion to hold hearings virtually (e.g., by telephone). An applicant's preference for an in-person hearing is not sufficient to compel the IAD to issue a travel document, especially when there is no clear evidence that a virtual format would be unfair.
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.
Want a second look at your refusal?
We assess IRCC refusals and pursue judicial review at the Federal Court when the decision is unreasonable.
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 Humanitarian & Compassionate (H&C) Grounds rulings
Court Upholds Deportation for Serious Criminality Despite H&C Claims
Federal Court: Minister Cannot Unilaterally Withdraw Evidence From Court Record
Federal Court: 'Better Life in Canada' Not Grounds for H&C Approval
Federal Court: Assertions Are Not Evidence in H&C Applications
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)