Background
Mario Jose Nunes, a Portuguese citizen who had lived in Canada since age nine, was a Canadian permanent resident when he travelled to Florida with his family in 2018. After forgetting his permanent resident card, he was denied boarding for his return flight. Unable to obtain an Electronic Travel Authorization while classified as a permanent resident, and unable to read English, he applied at the airport to renounce that status with help from his wife and son. IRCC immediately approved the renunciation, issued an eTA, and allowed him to return to Canada.
Nunes later said he did not understand that he had lost permanent resident status until IRCC refused his 2019 application to renew his permanent resident card. In 2023, counsel expressly asked IRCC to reconsider and reverse the 2018 approval of the renunciation on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, alleging that the decision was uninformed, resulted from erroneous government advice, and caused substantial hardship. Nunes also sought a new permanent resident card. In October 2024, an IRCC Program Support Officer refused the card because Nunes had renounced his status, without addressing the reconsideration request.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Court held that IRCC’s decision was unreasonable because its reasons were not meaningfully responsive to the application before it. Nunes had expressly and repeatedly requested reconsideration of the 2018 decision approving his renunciation; he was not merely attempting to challenge that decision indirectly through a permanent resident card application. The refusal addressed only his present ineligibility for a card and was silent about the reconsideration request on which the card application depended.
The Court rejected the Minister’s argument that the Program Support Officer had authority only to decide eligibility for a permanent resident card. The officer had not relied on that explanation, and a reviewing court could not supply a justification absent from the decision. Even if Nunes had submitted the reconsideration request to the wrong IRCC decision maker, IRCC had to route it to the proper official or alert him so that it could be determined on its merits, rather than ignore it.
The Court allowed judicial review, set aside the October 21, 2024 decision, and remitted the permanent resident card application—including the request to reconsider approval of the renunciation—to a new decision maker or decision makers authorized to address every aspect of it. The Court did not decide whether the renunciation should be reversed or whether Nunes should receive a permanent resident card.
Key Takeaways
- An administrative decision may be unreasonable when its reasons fail to address an express request that is central to the application.
- A court conducting reasonableness review cannot uphold an administrative outcome using a justification the decision maker did not provide.
- If an immigration request is directed to the wrong IRCC official, the agency cannot simply ignore it; it must route the request appropriately or alert the applicant.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a direct request to reconsider approval of a permanent-resident renunciation from an impermissible attempt to reopen that approval solely through a card application. Where the application materials clearly seek both reconsideration and a new card, IRCC must meaningfully address the reconsideration component.
The ruling does not restore Nunes’s permanent resident status. It requires a fresh administrative determination by an official or officials with authority to decide all parts of his application.