Immigration Refusals and Appeals

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

This case is an example of how reconsideration was the only viable option after an unjust refusal. Due to policy changes after the initial application, reapplying was not possible, making a reconsideration request critical.

(S) Situation:

The applicant submitted a Spousal Open Work Permit application in early 2024 while their spouse was enrolled in a diploma program in Ontario. Due to processing delays, they couldn’t submit the official marriage certificate at the time of application, so they provided a Record of Solemnization and supporting relationship evidence.

IRCC refused the application, stating insufficient proof of marriage. A reconsideration request was filed with the marriage certificate, but IRCC wrongfully refused again, claiming non-receipt of the documents – even though IRCC had already acknowledged receipt.

(T) Task:

• SAAB Immigration’s objective was to overturn the refusal by demonstrating that:
  The correct marriage certificate was submitted before the officer’s decision.
• IRCC had already acknowledged receipt of the missing documents.
  The applicant met all eligibility requirements before the policy change, which otherwise would have disqualified them from reapplying.
• Given the policy shift on January 22, 2024, reapplication was not an option—this made reconsideration the only viable strategy.

(A) Action:

• Reconsideration Request:
  • Filed a formal reconsideration request, attaching proof of IRCC’s acknowledgment email confirming that the marriage certificate was received before refusal.
• Clarification on Marriage Certificate:
  • Explained that the long-form Marriage License serves as an official marriage certificate under Ontario law, despite its title.
• Submission Evidence to Prove Compliance:
  • Since the representative portal did not allow uploads, provided:
    • Screenshot of failed upload attempt.
    • Confirmation email from IRCC showing the documents were attached to the file.
• Backup Visitor Record Application:
  • Since the applicant’s visitor status was expiring, filed a Visitor Record application as a contingency to maintain legal status in Canada while reconsideration was in process.

(R) Result:

• IRCC reversed the refusal and approved the SOWP application after multiple reconsideration requests.
• The applicant was granted a work permit, allowing them to stay and work in Canada with their spouse.
• This case highlights the importance of persistence, strong documentation, and proper legal representation in handling administrative errors and wrongful refusals.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

• The applicant submitted a spousal sponsorship application, which was refused because IRCC did not recognize their common-law relationship due to a lack of financial interdependence before a specific date.
• The couple had lived together for several years but had not merged their finances until later in their relationship.
• IRCC misinterpreted their cohabitation as common-law from an earlier date, leading to a refusal on the grounds of misrepresentation.

(T) Task:

• The goal was to challenge IRCC’s refusal by proving:
  • The couple’s relationship evolved over time, and their common-law status was valid only from a later date.
  • Financial interdependence is a key criterion for common-law partnerships under Canadian immigration law.
  • The M. v. H. (1999 SCC) case precedent supports defining common-law relationships based on economic interdependence.
• Instead of appealing, we opted for a fresh, stronger reapplication, addressing all previous concerns.

(A) Action:

• Gathered extensive documentation, including:
  • Detailed relationship timeline, lease agreements, and proof of joint financial accounts.
  • Supporting affidavits from family, employers, and mutual friends confirming their commitment.
• Cited M. v. H. (1999 SCC) to establish that:
  • Financial interdependence is critical in defining common-law status.
  • The couple’s prior living arrangement did not qualify as common-law until they merged finances.
• Submitted a new sponsorship application, ensuring clarity in presenting the legal definitions and rectifying prior misunderstandings.

(R) Result:

• The new application was approved, with IRCC acknowledging the correct timeline and financial interdependence.
• The applicant successfully obtained permanent residence, allowing them to remain in Canada with their spouse.
• The case highlights the importance of proper legal representation, as the previous agent’s errors resulted in unnecessary refusal and distress.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

• The sponsor married the applicant before receiving their Confirmation of Permanent Residence (COPR) but failed to declare their marriage to IRCC, assuming they could sponsor their spouse later.
• After moving to Canada, they had a child together, but when the spousal sponsorship was submitted in 2014, IRCC refused it, citing that the marriage was not declared during the PR process, making the applicant ineligible for sponsorship under IRCC’s excluded family member rule.
• The family remained separated for 10 years, unsure of how to overcome the refusal, losing precious years together.

(T) Task:

• The goal was to reunite the family in Canada after a decade by reapplying correctly and addressing the inadmissibility due to non-disclosure.
• We needed to:
  • Prove that the failure to declare the marriage was due to a misunderstanding, not misrepresentation.
  • Address the earlier refusal by building a strong legal argument and providing compelling evidence.
  • Demonstrate the humanitarian and compassionate impact of the prolonged family separation.

(A) Action:

• The couple previously sought assistance from a ghost consultant, who misrepresented their case, provided fraudulent documents, and never gave them access to their own file.
• When they retained SAAB Immigration Services Inc. in 2024, we:
  • Obtained the GCMS notes from the original refusal to understand IRCC’s reasoning in detail.
  • Correctly prepared a new sponsorship application, explicitly addressing the previous inadmissibility.
  • Provided a detailed legal submission, citing relevant case law and IRCC’s policy guidelines, demonstrating that the applicant should not be penalized indefinitely for the earlier mistake.
  • Highlighted the significant emotional and financial hardship caused by 10 years of separation.

(R) Result:

• After years of being unable to find a solution, our team successfully overturned the refusal, and the applicant was granted permanent residence.
• The family was finally reunited in Canada after a decade, proving that even complex refusals can be overcome with the right legal approach and expertise.
• This case highlights the dangers of ghost consultants and why choosing a licensed immigration professional is crucial in handling complex sponsorship cases.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

A client applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) after completing their Computer Systems Technician – Software Engineering program at Sheridan College, Brampton. However, IRCC refused the application, citing that the applicant did not maintain full-time student status during their studies.

Due to academic struggles and backlog courses, the student had multiple part-time semesters, making them technically ineligible for a PGWP. This refusal left them without work authorization, jeopardizing their future in Canada and their path to permanent residence.

(T) Task:

• The challenge was to convince IRCC to reconsider the PGWP application by proving that the applicant was a genuine student who faced unavoidable academic setbacks but remained committed to completing their program.
• Since reapplying was not an option, we had to request reconsideration and present a compelling argument demonstrating exceptional circumstances.

(A) Action:

• Chronological Breakdown of Academic History: We provided a semester-by-semester explanation outlining the reasons for part-time enrollment, including delayed grading, unavailable courses, and prerequisite restrictions imposed by the college.
• Supporting Documentation: Submitted emails from Sheridan College administrators confirming that course unavailability led to part-time status and was beyond the student’s control.
• Humanitarian Considerations: Highlighted that denying PGWP would cause undue hardship, preventing the applicant from gaining Canadian work experience, which was vital for PR.
• Compliance with Immigration Rules: Demonstrated that the applicant never violated study permit conditions, consistently extended their permit on time, and remained academically engaged despite setbacks.
• Request for Officer’s Discretion: Explained that IRCC officers have discretionary power, and given the genuine nature of the situation, approving the PGWP would be a fair and reasonable decision.

(R) Result:

• The reconsideration request was approved, and the applicant was granted a PGWP.
• With a valid work permit, the applicant gained Canadian work experience, later qualifying for PR.
• This case reinforced the importance of officer discretion and showed that even technically ineligible applicants can secure approvals with the right approach and supporting evidence.

(S) Situation:

An applicant’s Express Entry Permanent Residence application was refused by IRCC because their employer’s reference letter lacked detailed job duties. The refusal resulted in IRCC disregarding the applicant’s work experience, reducing their Comprehensive Ranking System score, and making them ineligible for PR.

The applicant had no option to appeal and was advised that a judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada might be the only recourse.

(T) Task:

• The goal was to challenge IRCC’s refusal on the grounds that procedural fairness was not upheld.
• IRCC never requested additional clarification or documents from the applicant before refusing the application.
• The argument needed to prove that the refusal was unfair and unreasonable based on existing case law.

(A) Action:

• A lawyer filed a Judicial Review application at the Federal Court of Canada, arguing that the applicant was not given an opportunity to clarify their job duties before refusal.
• A procedural fairness argument was presented, demonstrating that IRCC should have requested additional details before making a final decision.
• Past case precedents were cited, reinforcing that refusals in similar situations had been overturned due to lack of procedural fairness.
• The lawyer worked on securing leave for judicial review, allowing the case to be reconsidered.

(R) Result:

• The Federal Court ruled in favor of the applicant, determining that IRCC had acted unfairly by refusing the PR application without requesting additional details.
• IRCC was ordered to reassess the application, and the applicant’s work experience was reconsidered, restoring their CRS points.
• The applicant was able to successfully obtain PR, thanks to the judicial review process correcting the unfair refusal.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

The applicant, a nominee under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program (OINP), was unable to submit their permanent residence application within the required timeline due to serious personal circumstances. The applicant had initially received a Nomination Certificate in 2023, but the associated Invitation to Apply expired in December 2023 before submission.

Additionally, the applicant was experiencing financial and emotional distress due to personal matters, including a deteriorating relationship and obligations that prevented timely submission. With their Post-Graduation Work Permit nearing expiry, the urgency of securing permanent residence in Canada intensified.

(T) Task:

The primary objectives were:

1. Requesting a transfer of the existing nomination to the applicant’s new Express Entry profile, which was created after the expiration of the previous one.
2. Seeking an extension of the nomination certificate, despite the standard six-month validity rule that typically does not allow extensions.
3. Providing compelling justification for the request, demonstrating the exceptional personal circumstances that prevented compliance with the original timeline.

(A) Action:

• A formal request was submitted to OINP, detailing the extenuating personal circumstances that prevented timely submission.
• Supporting documents were attached, including:
  • A letter explaining the financial and emotional difficulties faced.
  • Proof of cancellation of the old Express Entry profile and the creation of a new profile.
  • A new IELTS TRF to show that the applicant remained eligible.
• Multiple follow-ups were conducted with OINP, reinforcing the applicant’s ongoing commitment to Ontario and the validity of their nomination.
• Strategic engagement with the OINP officers helped clarify that the applicant’s case merited exceptional consideration.

(R) Result:

• OINP approved both the nomination transfer and extension, an outcome that is not commonly granted.
• The nomination was transferred to the new Express Entry profile, and the applicant received 600 additional CRS points.
• The applicant received an ITA within the Express Entry system, allowing them to proceed with their PR application without further delay.

(Handled by SAAB Immigration Services Inc., led by Dikshit Soni)

(S) Situation:

Applicants approached our office after their Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) applications were refused because proof of language proficiency was not submitted, despite having already completed the IELTS exam prior to applying.

In some cases, this also led to refusal of a spouse’s open work permit, as it was dependent on the PGWP.

By the time these applicants sought assistance, they were dealing with:

• Loss of status
• Loss of work authorization
• Significant stress and uncertainty
• A time-sensitive legal issue involving the 180-day PGWP eligibility window

Due to current processing timelines, refusals were often issued months after submission, placing applicants in a situation where they were either close to or already beyond the 180-day limit from graduation.

The Core Issue

A common reaction from applicants in this situation is:

“I applied on time, this is not my fault.”

While that may be factually correct, immigration law does not operate on fault — it operates on consequences.

Even where the situation arose from:

• A minor oversight
• Incorrect or informal guidance
• Processing delays
• The application is assessed based on the current legal position at the time of decision, not the intention at the time of submission.

(T) Task:

These cases are not about simply correcting a missing document.

They require addressing:

• A refusal that has already taken effect
• Loss of legal status
• The impact of the 180-day PGWP limitation
• The need to present the case based on current circumstances, not past intent

A key challenge is shifting the focus from:

“Why this happened”

to

“What the situation is now, and how it should be assessed.”

(A) Action:

Each case was handled based on its specific facts and timing.

There is no single approach that works in all situations.

Depending on the circumstances, the process involved:

• Filing restoration of status applications where required
• Submitting reconsideration requests with complete documentation
• Preparing new applications where appropriate
• Ensuring full and accurate disclosure of all information
• Structuring submissions to reflect substantive eligibility rather than procedural error

The focus was always on presenting:

• The applicant’s actual eligibility at the time of original application
• The omission as a procedural oversight
• The current legal position, including any limitations now in place

(R) Results

Outcomes varied depending on the facts of each case.

There is no one-size-fits-all result in these situations.

Across similar cases we have handled:

• In some instances, reconsideration was successful, and the original refused PGWP application was reopened and approved
• In other cases, reconsideration did not succeed, but a new application was approved after addressing all legal and procedural issues
• In certain situations, a new application was filed as a safeguard, and later withdrawn when the original application was approved upon reconsideration
• In cases involving spouses, outcomes also varied depending on the timing and dependency on the principal applicant’s status

These variations highlight an important reality:

The outcome is not determined by the type of application alone, but by how the case is positioned in light of its current legal circumstances.

---

What Can Go Wrong

This is where many applicants face difficulty.

1. Confusing Restoration with PGWP Eligibility

Restoration of status allows you to remain in Canada legally.

It does not automatically preserve eligibility for a PGWP.

If more than 180 days have passed since graduation, eligibility for PGWP may be lost, even if restoration is approved.

---

2. Reapplying Without Addressing Timing Issues

Submitting a new application with the missing document does not guarantee approval.

If the 180-day window has passed, the application may be refused again.

---

3. Relying on Partial Information

There is significant confirmation bias online.

You will often see successful outcomes shared.

You will rarely see the following situations being discussed online:

• Cases where reconsideration failed
• Cases where reapplications were refused
• Situations where PGWP eligibility was permanently lost
• Many applicants only seek help after multiple unsuccessful attempts, at which point options become limited.

---

4. Arguing Fairness Instead of Addressing the Legal Position

A common mistake is focusing on:

“This is unfair”

instead of addressing:

“What is the current legal situation, and how can it be resolved.”

Immigration decisions are based on the present facts of the case, even if those facts arose from earlier mistakes or delays.

---

A missing IELTS document may appear to be a small oversight, but in the context of PGWP timelines, it can create serious and sometimes irreversible consequences.

There is no universal solution.

Each case must be assessed based on:

• Timing
• Status
• Eligibility at different stages
• The current legal position

These cases demonstrate a broader principle that Immigration law does not undo what has happened — it evaluates what exists now.

A strong application is not built on explaining fault.

It is built on addressing the situation as it stands, with clarity, accuracy, and proper legal framing.