Navigating the immigration process with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) can be challenging, especially when it comes to meeting strict deadlines for submitting required documents. If someone finds themselves needing more time, requesting an extension is possible.
Understanding the Need for an Extension
Various reasons might necessitate an extension to submit documents, such as delays in obtaining necessary records, unforeseen personal circumstances, or issues beyond one’s control. Whatever the reason, IRCC allows for the possibility of extensions, provided there is a valid justification.
Step-by-Step Process for Requesting an Extension
- Identify the Deadline and Act Promptly – As soon as the need for more time is realized, noting the original submission deadline and starting the extension request process immediately is crucial. Acting early demonstrates responsibility and awareness of IRCC’s timelines.
- Gather Supporting Documentation – Prepare any documents that support the need for an extension. This might include correspondence showing delays from third parties, medical records, or other evidence that substantiates the request.
- Compose a Detailed Request Letter – Write a clear and concise letter to IRCC explaining why an extension is needed. Include the following elements:
- Submit the Request – Submit the extension request through the appropriate channel. This could be via IRCC’s online portal, email, or mail, depending on the communication method previously used.
- Follow Up – After submitting the request, follow up to ensure it has been received and is being processed. Keep records of all communications for reference.
Tips for a Successful Request
- Be Honest and Transparent: Clearly explain the situation without exaggeration.
- Be Specific: Provide exact dates and details about why the extension is necessary.
- Be Proactive: Don’t wait until the last minute to request an extension. Acting sooner increases the chances of a favorable response.
- Keep Copies: Maintain copies of all correspondence with IRCC for records.
Jurisprudence
In Lee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 913, Madam Justice Turley reieterated that it is a breach of procedural fairness for IRCC to ignore to extension requests. As well, if an applicant seeks reconsideration of a refused application that was based on failure to provide documents, and the reconsideration request does not address the underlying, initial refusal to extend the deadline, then there will still be a breach of procedural fairness, even if the applicant does not include the requested documents in the reconsideration request.
Notwithstanding that it can be a breach of procedural fairness for IRCC to not consider extension requests, there are limits to this. In Mendoza De Jesus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 32, Justice Zinn wrote:
The Applicants rely on three cases to advance the principle that “ignoring reasonable and timely extension requests may constitute a procedural fairness breach”: Hussain v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1199 [Hussain] at paras 6-11; Venkata v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 423 [Venkata] at paras 75-78; Adams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1104 at para 12. While I agree that these cases support this principle, the factual scenario here is wholly distinguishable from those in the cited authorities.
For example, in Hussain, the Court found a breach where the applicant made a single 30‑day extension request after a two-and-a-half-year processing delay by the immigration authority. In Venkata, the breach centered on the officer’s failure to address an extension request or communicate its status when clarity about additional documents was needed. Here, by contrast, the Officer had already offered accommodation through multiple extensions, with, in my view, the partial grant of the third request signaling limits to the extension process.
Two factors further distinguish this case from the cited authorities and diminish the procedural fairness claim. First, the final extension request was submitted one day before the existing deadline. Given the timing and the extensive prior extensions already granted, the request cannot be reasonably characterized as “timely.” The federal service disruption that occurred after the April 18 deadline does not alter this conclusion.
Second, while the Applicants cited delays in obtaining immigration records through Access to Information processes, they failed to explain how these records were relevant to their H&C request until the very last request for extension, in which they indicated a need to access interview notes. However, this Court has held that immigration authorities are not obligated to disclose such notes, as the necessity for doing so depends on “the role that this evidence played in the officer’s decision-making process”: Darwisheh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 98 at para 24. Here, the interview notes do not play as central a role in the Officer’s decision-making process.
Procedural fairness requires a meaningful opportunity to present one’s case, not an indefinite one. While the consequences for the Applicants are significant, this does not obviate the need for timely engagement with administrative processes. I am of the view that the record demonstrates that the Applicants received a full and fair chance to respond as contemplated by Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69. That they could not access a more optimized opportunity does not render the process procedurally unfair