Published
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2019, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.
Updated November 10, 2026: section 16 of the Act and the Federal Court’s 2026 decision in Dhamu checked that day.
The fix: judicial review if the document was not reasonably required or you did provide it; otherwise a new application with everything the officer asked for. A 16(1) refusal on its own does not carry the five-year misrepresentation ban.
The deadline: 15 days if you are in Canada, 60 days if outside (IRPA s.72).
Why a lawyer: whether the officer was entitled to ask for that document, and whether the refusal hides a misrepresentation finding, are legal questions. Why a lawyer
The lawyers who review these refusals
Sundeep S. GrewalBarrister and Solicitor
Prabhpreet Kaur SanghaBarrister and Solicitor
Pardeep S. GrewalBarrister and SolicitorAbout our lawyers
Sundeep S. Grewal founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.
Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha focuses on refugee claims, immigration appeals, inadmissibility, detention reviews and Federal Court cases, and has presented at Continuing Legal Education seminars and the National Immigration Conference.
Pardeep S. Grewal is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.
Section 16(1) of the Act requires every applicant to answer truthfully and to provide the documents an officer “reasonably requires”. A refusal under section 16(1) usually means you did not send something the officer asked for, such as biometrics, a document requested in a fairness letter, or answers at an interview. It is not the same as a misrepresentation finding, and it does not on its own bar you for five years. If the officer had no good reason to need the document, or you did provide it, judicial review can send it back. Otherwise, a new application with everything requested is usually faster.
Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, reviews IRCC refusals and takes them to the Federal Court; this guide is by Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha.
Leave your details and our team will contact you to arrange a time with a lawyer. Or call (778) 598-3785.
Thank you, we have your request
A member of our team will contact you to arrange a time. If your matter is urgent, call us at (778) 598-3785, Monday to Friday, 9:00 am – 5:00 pm.
What does section 16(1) say?
Section 16(1): an applicant “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.” Section 16(1.1) adds that you must appear for an examination when asked, and section 16(2) includes fingerprints, photos and medical exams.
What does the refusal say?
The wording I see in these files:
- “You have not complied with our request for information, per subsection 16(1) of the IRPA. To date, you have failed to comply with our request for biometrics.”
- “I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements of the Act. I am therefore refusing your application pursuant to subsections 16(1) of the Act.”
How is this different from misrepresentation?
Misrepresentation under section 40(1)(a) needs a false statement or a withheld fact that could lead to an error, and it brings a five-year ban. A 16(1) refusal is about not answering or not providing. It ends that application, but it does not stop you from applying again. If the letter mentions section 40 or a five-year period, it is a misrepresentation finding. See our guide on misrepresentation.
Why this needs a lawyer
One lawyer, one file, every step:
- checking whether the request was reasonable and whether you answered it;
- judicial review within 15 or 60 days;
- a new application with everything the officer asked for.
Immigration lawyers are members of a provincial law society (in our case, the Law Society of British Columbia), and only lawyers can appear for you in the Federal Court.
Reconsideration is often suggested by people who cannot represent you in the Federal Court. It is discretionary, rarely changes the result and does not stop the deadline.
What are my options?
- Check the request. Find the letter that asked for the document and the date it was due, and whether your answer was received.
- Judicial review if you did send it, or if the document had nothing to do with the requirements of your application. 15 or 60 days.
- A new application with the document, if the request was fair and you missed it.
- Reconsideration request, with proof you sent it on time. Discretionary, and does not stop the court deadline.
What did the Court say in Dhamu?
In Dhamu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 562, a post-graduation work permit was refused because the applicant did not provide a credential assessment requested in a fairness letter. She argued the document was not a legal requirement for the permit and that the officer did not explain why it was needed. The Federal Court dismissed her challenge on April 29, 2026.
The lesson I take from Dhamu is to answer the request, or explain in writing before the deadline why you cannot, rather than argue later that it was unnecessary.
Section 16(1) at a glance
| Question | Answer | Source |
|---|---|---|
| What it requires | Truthful answers and documents the officer reasonably requires | IRPA s.16(1) |
| Includes | Interviews, fingerprints, photos, medicals | IRPA s.16(1.1), (2) |
| Five-year ban? | Not for 16(1) alone; only for misrepresentation | IRPA s.40(2)(a) |
| Court deadline | 15 days in Canada; 60 days outside | IRPA s.72(2)(b) |
Worked example: the missed request
Example. A visitor visa applicant received a biometrics instruction letter with 30 days to give fingerprints. The nearest centre was booked for six weeks, and he did nothing. The application was refused under section 16(1). Had he written to IRCC before day 30 with proof of the booking, he would have had a record to point to. Now the faster route is a new application with biometrics done.
Mistakes I have seen
- I have seen people miss a document request because the email went to an old address or an agent’s account.
- I have seen people send part of what was requested without explaining what was missing and why.
- I have seen people treat a 16(1) refusal as a ban and not reapply.
Frequently asked questions
Does a 16(1) refusal stop me from reapplying?
No, not on its own. Disclose it on the next application and include what was missing.
What if I could not get the document?
Tell the officer in writing before the deadline, with proof of your efforts, and ask for more time or offer an alternative.
Can an officer ask for anything?
No. The document must be one the officer “reasonably requires” for the application.
Related guides
See our guides on what each IRCC letter means, an application returned as incomplete and misrepresentation.
What should I do right now?
Find the request letter, the due date and any proof you replied. Write down the date of the refusal and whether you were in or outside Canada. Decide whether the refusal belongs in court or in a new application.
Book a consultation with our immigration lawyers in Surrey, Abbotsford or Vancouver, or online from anywhere.
Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑
Sources (official)
- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 16 (current to October 19, 2026), s. 40 and s. 72
- Dhamu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 562 (April 29, 2026)
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.