Stewart Sharma Harsanyi

06/12/2026

Consent by our lovely colleagues at the DoJ on a parent/grandparent refusal (an "incomplete" resume -with a gap some 45 years ago). The client had submitted a reconsideration with no luck. We filed a JR against both the initial decision and the decision not to reconsider. We later sought to consolidate. Excellent work by the team (and our articling student, soon to be called to the bar) on this -we did rely on Justice Battista's decision in Devgon v. Canada 2025 FC 2005.

It would have been ideal if IRCC would employ some common sense and an empathetic eye towards such applications/requests to reconsider. The CV request strange -it basically replicates the information sought in the forms and one could argue it's just another (engineered) point of failure by applicants (who are told in no uncertain terms that they don't need any third party representative to present their applications). Form should never take precedence over fairness. The Court is backlogged as it is and seeking after the fact justice is a little like using a hammer to kill a mosquito.

Better first line decision making will have multiplicative and manifold salutary benefits both for the Court and for applicants.

06/12/2026

Navigating IRGC inadmissibility under IRPA s. 34(1)(f)? The recent Vadiati decision has caused a stir but it shouldn't dictate fate. Here’s how to approach Procedural Fairness Letters (PFLs) for mandatory conscripts

In Vadiati, the Federal Court upheld an inadmissibility refusal largely because the applicant made a fatal procedural error: failing to raise the duress defense or submit supporting documentary evidence during the PFL stage. The applicant tried to introduce new evidence regarding conscription on judicial review, which the court rejected because it wasn't before the original decision-maker.

Our strategy? Front-load the PFL response. Don't wait for the Federal Court.

Unlike the United States, which essentially applies a rigid, unreviewable strict liability approach to any IRGC service, Canadian law requires decision-makers to assess whether an individual is a "genuine" member". Mere passive or coerced involvement is not enough; the officer must conduct a highly contextual analysis examining the voluntariness, length, and environment of the participation.

To win at the PFL stage, we aggressively build the record using two main evidentiary pillars:

1️⃣ Country of Origin Information (COI): We use reliable international reports (like the UK Home Office and EUAA) to prove that Iranian military service is universal and mandatory for men at age 18. We highlight that draftees are arbitrarily assigned to branches like the IRGC with no personal choice, and that roughly 60% of IRGC personnel are conscripts, not ideological volunteers. We also emphasize the severe penalties for draft evasion, which include criminal prosecution, imprisonment, and the stripping of civil rights like employment, education, and the ability to leave the country.

2️⃣ Detailed Statutory Declarations: We submit a sworn statement from the applicant detailing the exact context of their service. This declaration explicitly outlines their lack of ideological support, the fact that their rank was simply tied to their education level, and the reality that their duties were purely administrative and non-combative. It also establishes the subjective fear of the severe consequences they would have faced for non-compliance.

The Takeaway: You must provide the officer with an undeniable, robust evidentiary record at the very first opportunity. By proving the service was short, compulsory, and de minimis, you force the officer to legally reckon with the fact that there was never a "genuine" institutional link or shared ideology.

Build the defense now, so you don't have to fight an empty record later! ⚖️🇨🇦

05/21/2026

Success for our client, a long term resident of Canada at the JR for her H&C decision. Justice Thorne found (in part) the officers reasons irrational in the treatment of establishment in Canada (the main focus of the applicant’s submissions, including her 12 years in Canada and work as a health-care aide in long-term care during/after COVID) The Officer acknowledged positive factors (long residence, employment, skills, self-support, remittances, friends, and community ties) but then discounted them, essentially saying these are “things that anyone who has resided in Canada for a period of time might be likely to engage in.”

The Court called this irrational and a “no-win” situation for applicants: If you don’t integrate (skills, job, friends), you have no establishment.

If you do integrate, it’s dismissed as commonplace.

This approach misses the entire point of the establishment factor and functions as a veiled “exceptionality” test (which is legally incorrect). It also fails to explain why 12 years of demonstrated integration would be considered “significant” if the actual integration activities are disregarded.

Kaur v MCI 2026 FC 644

05/12/2026

It's official! Congratulations to Faraz Bawa KC! A well deserved honour.

05/12/2026

A pleasure welcoming our friends from Shory Law before Mr. Shory's KC ceremony!

04/20/2026

Delgado v. MCI 2026 FC 497

This is a great recent case from the Federal Court about the importance of empathy in assessing H&C applications.

In this case, the applicant was a 65 year old Cuban grandmother; she had sought H&C relief which was denied in late 2024; Justice Brouwer granted the application finding that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable. She had first fled her country in 2010 along with her son (who is gay) making her way to Canada that same year where her daughter was already found to be a protected person (her refugee claim had been accepted). Her claim too was accepted and she became a PR in 2012. 6 years later she went to Cuba because her brother was dying and returned to Canada the same year; she’s been here ever since. Her single trip to Cuba led to the Minister seeking to cessate her status which they managed to do in 2021. This was before the salutary change in jurisprudence regarding cessation proceedings. With the assistance of her counsel she filed a H&C application and raised that point along with her decade plus establishment in Canada, her family here, her grandchildren’s best interests, and the hardship that would result in going back to Cuba (she had documented and longstanding mental health challenges).
The H&C Officer refused the application. At one point the Officer noted that the Cuban health system was among the best in the world (Decision, para 7).The Officer dismissed the impact on the grandchildren seeing it as no different than other Canadian families with “varying challenges" and noted that the applicant may not want to return to Cuba given her "extended visit” or time in Canada. Finally, the Officer found that she had been granted a privilege by being recognized as a refugee and her return to Cuba showed disrespect for Canadian law.
The Court agreed with the applicant in several respects. Firstly, the Officer’s finding that the Cuban health system was among the best in the world was not in line with the actual evidence presented. Most of her health challenges were not present when she was in Cuba (pre-2010) and moreover the current state of Cuba’s health system is a far cry from what it may have been pre-2010.
In terms of the BIOC, the Court found that the analysis was not in accord with the jurisprudence. The Court agreed with the Applicant that the Officer ignored the emotional interconnectedness and the impact that separation and loss would have on them.
Ultimately the Court found that there is a “larger problem” with the Officer’s assessment: the lack of compassion. The Court cited Kanthasamy and Justice D. Campbell’s decision in Damte. The Court reiterated that H&C applications are “an exercise in empathy”. The Court found that the decision was utterly deficient in this regard and was dismissive overall. The Court specifically calls out the Officer’s characterization of the applicant’s decade plus life in Canada as an “extended visit". The Court also notes that the recognition of refugee protection is not a privilege but a right. There was no basis for the Officer to get on his high horse and make a moral finding that the applicant showed disregard for Canada’s laws; that she failed to appreciate the "privilege” granted to her and her going back to Cuba on one occasion to be with her dying brother. The Court found that these two passages demonstrated that the Officer failed to engage empathetically with the application.
The decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration by a different decision maker.

04/06/2026

Our thoughts on a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision on mandamus the remedy for delay and a potential fix for uncertainty. It's something we're very familiar with and use on a regular basis to achieve movement on our clients files.

https://www.sshlaw.ca/mandamus-the-remedy-for-indolent-ircc-officers/

03/31/2026

"Strengthening Canada's Immigration System and Borders Act" has become law.

Bill C-12 received royal assent and has become law, strengthening Canada’s immigration and asylum systems in 4 key areas

03/22/2026

Look for greater enforcement from an emboldened and empowered CBSA. In this case our client faced an allegation of misrepresentation for failing to declare the involvement of a paid consultant (a "ghost consultant").

Immigration, Family and Criminal Law

03/20/2026

Eid Mubarak to all our Muslim clients colleagues and staff!