Ahmadzai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2026 FC 412
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 30 March 2026
- Posture
- Judicial Review — Immigration — Refusal of Permanent Residence Under Public Policy / Judgment and Reasons; Application Dismissed
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 30 March 2026
- Posture
- Judicial Review — Immigration — Refusal of Permanent Residence Under Public Policy / Judgment and Reasons; Application Dismissed
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Because the facts and issues were substantially similar to an earlier Federal Court decision (Ahmadzai v Canada, 2025 FC 1754), the Court applied judicial comity and followed that decision: the officer did not err in finding the public policy conditions unmet, denying H&C relief, and refusing de facto dependent inclusion requested after the sponsor became a permanent resident; consequently the judicial review is dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed
Orders
- The application for judicial review is dismissed.
- No question is certified
02
Material facts
Parties
Mohammed Naiem Ahmadzai
Applicant Counsel: Zachary Ross MorgensternThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent Counsel: Aleksandra Murray03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review — Immigration — Refusal of Permanent Residence Under Public Policy / Judgment and Reasons; Application Dismissed
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the immigration officer erred in refusing permanent residence under the public policy
- 02
Whether the officer properly refused humanitarian and compassionate exemption
- 03
Whether applicants could be added as de facto dependents after the sponsor became a permanent resident
- 04
Whether the Court should follow an earlier Federal Court decision on substantially similar facts (judicial comity)
- 05
Whether counsel’s failure to disclose an adverse prior judgment affected the proceedings
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant argued that he and his mother met the conditions of the public policy (including under a previous version), that H&C relief should have been granted, and that they could be included as de facto dependents on the brother’s successful application; counsel disputed the earlier Federal Court decision and did not disclose it until after filing further submissions.
- Respondent
- Respondent maintained the officer correctly applied the public policy and its conditions, properly denied H&C relief, correctly concluded de facto dependent inclusion was impossible because the request came after the sponsor became a permanent resident, and that the prior Federal Court decision disposed of the issues.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Federal Court jurisprudence; Ahmadzai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1754
Judicial comity requires a judge of this Court to follow an earlier decision of another judge of the same Court on the same issue where facts are substantially similar
- 02
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada public policy instrument (resettlement of Afghan nationals)
Applicants must meet the explicit requirements of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada public policy to qualify for the relief it provides
- 03
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Humanitarian and compassionate relief is discretionary and governed by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act framework
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Because the facts and issues were substantially similar to an earlier Federal Court decision (Ahmadzai v Canada, 2025 FC 1754), the Court applied judicial comity and followed that decision: the officer did not err in finding the public policy conditions unmet, denying H&C relief, and refusing de facto dependent inclusion requested after the sponsor became a permanent resident; consequently the judicial review is dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The judge expressly criticized counsel’s failure to disclose the earlier adverse decision and emphasized that disclosure was of particular concern given identical arguments.
- The judge stated he was in full agreement with Justice Grant’s reasons and was not persuaded that Justice Grant erred.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed
- The application for judicial review is dismissed.
- No question is certified
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 30 March 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 30 March 2026
Ahmadzai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2026-03-30 Neutral citation 2026 FC 412 File numbers IMM-508-25 Decision Content Date: 20260330 Docket: IMM-508-25 Citation: 2026 FC 412 Ottawa, Ontario, March 30, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED NAIEM AHMADZAI Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS (delivered from the bench by videoconference on March 30, 2026) [1] The applicant, Mr. Ahmadzai, and his mother both applied for permanent residence pursuant to a public policy for the resettlement of certain categories of Afghan nationals. Their applications were refused because they did not satisfy the conditions of that public policy. The officer also denied their request to be exempted from certain conditions on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. Moreover, the officer considered whether Mr. Ahmadzai and his mother could be added as de facto dependents to Mr. Ahmadzai’s brother’s successful application under a different public policy. However, the officer found that this was impossible, as the brother only requested their inclusion after he became a permanent resident, contrary to the requirements of the latter public policy. [2] Mr. Ahmadzai and his mother brought separate applications for judicial review of this decision. While they are represented by the same lawyer, they did not seek consolidation of their files. As a result, the two applications proceeded separately. [3] Last October, my colleague Justice Angus Grant dismissed the mother’s application: Ahmadzai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1754. When he filed his further memorandum of argument a few weeks ago, counsel for Mr. Ahmadzai did not disclose that decision.
This is of particular concern, as identical arguments are put forward in both cases. [4] Judicial comity is a principle whereby a judge of this Court will follow an earlier decision made by another judge regarding the same issue. The situations of Mr. Ahmadzai and his mother are substantially similar. At the hearing, counsel for Mr. Ahmadzai confirmed that he was making the same arguments as in the mother’s case, perhaps under a slightly different packaging. He also stated that in his view, Justice Grant’s decision was wrong. [5] In my view, Justice Grant addressed all the issues raised in the present application. In particular, I am not persuaded that the wording of a previous version of the public policy changes anything. [6] In these circumstances, I will follow Justice Grant’s decision as a matter of judicial comity. I will simply add that I am in full agreement with his reasons and I have not been persuaded by counsel’s submissions that he erred. [7] Therefore, I will dismiss the present application for judicial review. JUDGMENT in file IMM-508-25 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified "Sébastien Grammond" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD OCKET: IMM-508-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMED NAIEM AHMADZAI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:
BY VIDEONCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: March 30, 2026 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GRAMMOND J. DATED: March 30, 2026 APPEARANCES: Zachary Ross Morgenstern For The Applicant Aleksandra Murray For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Don Valley Community Legal Services Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.