Federal Court: A Single Line Request for a TRP Cannot Be Ignored by IRCC
- Citation
- 2026 FC 290
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-19900-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Muhammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 290
The applicant, found inadmissible for misrepresentation after losing his refugee status, applied for permanent residence via spousal sponsorship with a request for H&C relief. The officer refused the application, finding the positive H&C factors did not outweigh the inadmissibility, and completely ignored an alternative request for a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP).
Court Ruling
The Federal Court upheld the officer's H&C assessment as reasonable but granted the judicial review because the officer failed to address the TRP request. The Court affirmed a long-standing legal principle that even a single-line request for a TRP in submissions is sufficient to trigger an officer's duty to consider it.
Key Quote from the Court
I am unable to find a basis for departing from a long line of decisions of this Court dating back to 2004, which have consistently held that there are no particular requirements governing the form of TRP applications [...] such that even a single line submission is sufficient to trigger the duty on the part of an IRCC officer to consider a TRP request.
Expert Takeaways
-
TRP Requests Require No Special Form This decision reaffirms that an applicant does not need to submit a specific form or pay a separate fee to make a valid TRP request. A simple, explicit request within other application submissions is sufficient to oblige the officer to consider and render a decision on it.
-
Address All Forms of Relief When making submissions, especially in complex H&C cases, counsel should explicitly request all possible forms of relief, including a TRP as an alternative. An officer's failure to address any requested relief is a reviewable error that can be grounds to overturn a decision.
-
H&C Assessments Can Be Reasonable Even if Negative The Court found the officer's weighing of H&C factors against a serious inadmissibility (misrepresentation) to be reasonable. This shows that while H&C factors like BIOC are given significant weight, they do not automatically overcome serious inadmissibility findings.
-
A Partial Win is Still a Win Even though the Court did not overturn the H&C refusal, the applicant succeeded in having the matter sent back for a TRP determination. This provides the applicant with another chance to remain in Canada while highlighting the importance of challenging procedural errors.
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.
Your window to challenge is closing.
Judicial review of an IRCC refusal is time-sensitive. Book a consultation before your deadline.
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 Spousal / Family Class Sponsorship rulings
Federal Court: You Are Responsible for Your Agent’s Misrepresentation
Federal Court Upholds Spousal Sponsorship Refusal Over Non-Genuine Marriage Finding
Inconsistencies & 'Pull Factors' Sink Spousal Sponsorship at Federal Court
Court Rejects Spousal Sponsorship Refusal, Citing Officer's Factual and Analytical Errors
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)