Docket: IMM-7612-25
Citation: 2026 FC 917
Toronto, Ontario, July 8, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MOHIBULLAH KHAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on July 8, 2026
and edited for syntax, grammar, and case citations)
[1] The Applicant Mohibullah Khan is a citizen of Pakistan. He entered Canda in November 2018 on a temporary resident visa and has resided here ever since. In September 2019, Mr. Khan applied for permanent residence [PR] under the self-employed persons class in the hope of opening a karate studio in Mississauga, Ontario. Mr. Kahn’s PR application was refused on October 10, 2024 [PR Refusal]. Mr. Khan requested reconsideration of the PR Refusal, which request was refused on March 14, 2025 [Reconsideration Decision].
[2] The instant judicial review relates only to the Reconsideration Decision. Mr. Khan applied separately to this Court, under Court File IMM-19268-24, for leave and judicial review of the PR Refusal. The latter application was held in abeyance until March 31, 2025, however, while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] dealt with Mr. Khan’s reconsideration request, which he submitted on December 4, 2025. Mr. Khan did not perfect his application in Court File IMM-19268-24.
[3] The Reconsideration Decision is brief and states that “[the] request for reconsideration has been reviewed and there are insufficient reasons for re-opening [the] application.”
The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which expand on the reasons, indicate that the Officer reviewed the entire application, the PR Refusal and the request for reconsideration. In the Officer’s view, “all relevant evidence was fully considered and the decision to refuse is valid in law and fact.”
The Officer concluded that the PR Refusal stands and that IRCC will take no further action on the file; the reconsideration request to reopen the file, thus, was refused.
[4] Mr. Khan submits the Reconsideration Decision was procedurally unfair because the Officer that determined his PR application did not provide Mr. Khan with an opportunity to correct the deficiencies in his documentation, and because that same Officer failed to provide Mr. Khan with sufficient time to respond to a procedural fairness letter. All Mr. Khan’s submissions on this judicial review relate to the PR Refusal. Mr. Khan has not pointed to any error in the Reconsideration Decision. As I will explain, this judicial review is not an opportunity for Mr. Khan to resurrect the unperfected judicial review of the PR Refusal.
[5] A decision on a reconsideration request is distinct from the initial decision: McAlpin v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 FC 422 at para 49. There are certain circumstances where the Court has exercised its discretion to hear judicial reviews of both the initial decision and the reconsideration decision at the same time because it was in the interests of justice to do so: see Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 79 at para 14, including the cited cases.
[6] I am not satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice in the present case to consider Mr. Khan’s arguments that go to the heart of the initial decision, i.e. the PR Refusal. Once the abeyance came to an end, Mr. Khan failed to perfect his application for leave and judicial review of the PR Refusal. Mr. Khan had an opportunity to see the challenge of the PR Refusal through but failed to act on it. He should not be rewarded now for his lack of diligence in pursuing his judicial review of the PR Refusal. In any event, he has not made any submissions about why the Court should consider the PR Refusal on the instant judicial review.
[7] I conclude that because Mr. Khan has not made any submissions on the reasonableness of the Reconsideration Decision, nor has he alleged any breaches of procedural fairness with respect to that decision, the present application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[8] Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for certification. I find that none arises in the circumstances.
Email this Content