Docket: IMM-9844-24
Citation: 2026 FC 343
Toronto, Ontario, March 2, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Blackhawk
|
BETWEEN: |
|
NASU SAFFA |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(delivered orally from the bench on March 2, 2026)
[1] The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) refused the Applicant’s appeal of the decision denying the sponsorship of her alleged child. The IAD and the visa office determined that the Applicant had not established that the child was her biological son as set out at section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Therefore, the Applicant was not a member of the family class pursuant to paragraph 117(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
[2] The IAD disbelieved the Applicant’s evidence regarding the parental link between her and her alleged son and disbelieved the DNA results which she offered to prove parentage. The IAD also disbelieved the authenticity of the child’s birth certificate, including the reason why it took 18 years for the birth certificate to be issued.
[3] The Applicant argues that the IAD decision breached procedural fairness in two ways.
[4] First, the Applicant argues that she had a legitimate expectation that a DNA test would be ordered to prove her parentage. This is based on a note from the visa officer indicating that if the child’s age was verified, DNA testing would be requested. The Applicant claims that the IAD should have adjourned the hearing to order a DNA test.
[5] I do not agree that the Applicant had a legitimate expectation that DNA testing would be ordered or that the IAD should have adjourned the hearing for DNA testing. The record for this Application does not establish that the visa officer made an unqualified undertaking to conduct DNA testing. In addition, I note that there is no statutory or policy requirement for DNA testing.
[6] Further, the IAD found that DNA testing was not necessary, given its credibility concerns in respect of the evidence provided by the Applicant in support of her application. The Applicant has not challenged the reasonableness of those credibility concerns.
[7] The second breach of procedural fairness relates to the Minister’s submissions to the IAD that included the Alternative Dispute Resolution notes. The Applicant states that she was deprived of the ability to reply to those notes, which raised concerns about the Applicant’s education documents.
[8] I agree with the Respondent that the record shows the Applicant had ample advance notice of the concerns raised in respect of the educational documents. Specifically, the Applicant was alerted to those concerns in letters dated September 7, 2023 and October 20, 2023. The record illustrates that the Applicant provided written submissions to the IAD on March 17, 2024. The Respondent’s written submissions to the IAD are dated March 20, 2024. Further, there was no evidence that the Applicant attempted to file a reply to the Respondent’s submissions nor is there evidence that she was foreclosed from doing so.
[9] For these reasons, there has been no breach of fairness and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[10] The Parties did not pose questions for certification and I agree that there are none.
Email this Content