The Procedural Fairness Trap: Decoding Entezamfar v. Canada (2026 FC 141) and the Limits of Section 16(1)
In the current landscape of Canadian immigration, the Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) is often the final threshold between an applicant’s dreams and a five-year ban or permanent refusal. However, as the Federal Court recently clarified in Entezamfar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 141, a PFL is not a “trapdoor” that officers can trigger simply because of a perceived delay in communication.
This judgment is essential reading for every immigration consultant, lawyer, and applicant in Mississauga, Brampton, the GTA and Canada. It draws a hard line between an applicant’s Section 16(1) duty of candour and the Government’s duty of natural justice.
I. The Anatomy of a Refusal: The Case of Entezamfar
The Applicant in this matter faced a scenario that has become increasingly common in 2025 and 2026: the “Silence Refusal.”
The Timeline of Friction
- February 07, 2024: The IRCC issued a Procedural Fairness Letter (PFL) to the Applicant, seeking specific information regarding her background and underlying application requirements.
- The Stalemate: The information sought was not received by the decision-maker within the deadline mentioned in the PFL.
- The Decision: The Officer concluded that the Applicant’s “failure to answer the PFL and to provide the information requested promptly” constituted a breach of her statutory obligations.
- The Refusal: Relying on Subsection 16(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the application was refused because the Applicant had failed to answer questions put to her for the purpose of the examination.
At Ghuge Legal, we see this as a dangerous conflation of “procedural delay” and “statutory non-compliance.” The Federal Court, in its judgment in the above matter, concluded that indeed it is an administrative unreasonableness by IRCC
II. Understanding Subsection 16(1) of the IRPA
To appreciate the Court’s intervention, one must understand the weight of the law used against the Applicant. Subsection 16(1) states:
“A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires.”
This is the “Duty of Candour”—the bedrock of the Canadian immigration system. It is a mandatory, proactive obligation. Usually, if an applicant provides false information, they are hit with Section 40 (1) of the IRPA for (Misrepresentation). But here, the officer used Section 16(1) not for falsehood, but for silence.
The Legal Distinction
The Officer’s logic was that a failure to respond to a PFL in a “timely manner” is, by extension, a failure to “answer truthfully all questions put to them.” This interpretation transforms a procedural deadline into a substantive legal breach.
III. The Federal Court’s Observation: When Silence Isn’t a Breach
In 2026 FC 141, the Court examined whether it was reasonable to equate a missed PFL deadline with a refusal to comply with the IRPA specially when the said PFL was not sent to the applicant or the applicant’s representative. The Court’s observations provide three vital protections for applicants:
1. The “Reasonable Time” Nuance
The Court noted that while Section 16(1) requires applicants to produce documents, the Act does not define “timely manner” as a “binary switch.” If an applicant fails to respond by day 30 of a 30-day PFL, does that immediately constitute a refusal to answer?
The Court observed that administrative decision-makers must consider the totality of the circumstances. If there is evidence that the PFL was not received by the applicant (due to portal glitches, incorrect email addresses, or counsel oversight), a refusal based on Section 16(1) lacks justification and transparency.
2. Onus is on the IRCC to ensure the delivery of PFL
Building on the jurisprudence of Yazdani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 885 and Abboud v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 876, the Court in Entezamfar reminded IRCC that it has the onus of ensuring that an email to be sent to an applicant is, in fact, actually sent to the applicant at issue.
The court has further held that when an applicant informs IRCC that they did not receive correspondence that was purportedly delivered to them, the IRCC officer should allow the applicant to provide the requested documents through the failed communication before making a decision. Additionally, the court held that a failure to do so is “a flagrant violation of the requirements of procedural fairness”. It concluded that the decision-maker in this case failed to bridge the gap between “I didn’t get your email” and “You are refusing to answer my questions.”
3. The Duty of Inquisitorial Fairness
While the onus is on the applicant to prove their case, the court in this matter observed that when an applicant has been otherwise compliant and communicative, a sudden “failure to answer” should trigger a secondary inquiry from the visa officer. In the digital era of 2026, where IRCC portal technical issues are well-documented, assuming a “willful refusal to answer” due to a non-receipt of the PFL is often a reviewable error.
IV. Strategic Implications: The Ghuge Legal Defence
How do we protect our clients in Mississauga, Brampton, and GTA from an Entezamfar-style refusal? We utilize administrative dexterity to ensure the record is audit-proof.
The “Paper Trail” Protocol
If you receive a PFL, the response must be more than just “truthful.” It must be “Statutorily Complete.”
- Acknowledge Receipt Immediately: Never let a PFL sit. Even if you need an extension, the acknowledgment signals “compliance with Section 16(1).”
- Verify the PFL Scope: Is the Officer asking for something they “reasonably require” (s. 16(1)) or something extraneous? If the request is unreasonable, our immigration lawyers challenge the PFL’s validity before the deadline expires.
- Document Technical Failures: If the IRCC portal is down, we take dated screenshots. If a response is sent but not acknowledged, we send a follow-up letter through the Webform and document it through dated screenshot.
VI. Final Thoughts: The Rule of Law vs. Administrative Haste
The ruling in Entezamfar v. Canada, 2026 FC 141, is a reminder that the “efficiency” of the IRCC cannot come at the expense of the Rule of Law. A Procedural Fairness Letter is supposed to be a bridge to a fair decision, not a shortcut to a silent refusal. If your application has been refused under Section 16(1) because of a “late” or “missing” response to a PFL, you may have a winning case for Judicial Review. The Federal Court has sent a clear message: Silence is not a confession of non-compliance. Reach out to us to know more about how to address a “silent refusal” for non-receipt of a Procedural Fairness Letter.
Case law: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/529827/index.do
#caselaw#PFL#proceduralfairnessletter#federalcourt#immigrationlaw#immigrationappealslawyer#immigrationattorney#
