{"id":2112,"date":"2026-11-10T23:53:48","date_gmt":"2026-11-10T23:53:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/refused-section-16-1-irpa\/"},"modified":"2026-11-11T01:31:48","modified_gmt":"2026-11-11T01:31:48","slug":"refused-section-16-1-irpa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawgicalcorp.com\/blog\/refused-section-16-1-irpa\/","title":{"rendered":"Refused under section 16(1) of the Act: what it means, how it differs from misrepresentation, and your options"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a>, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation \u00b7 Reviewed November 10, 2026<\/em><\/p>\n

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<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Updated November 10, 2026: section 16 of the Act and the Federal Court’s 2026 decision in Dhamu checked that day.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The fix:<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

The deadline:<\/strong> 15 days if you are in Canada, 60 days if outside (IRPA s.72<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Why a lawyer:<\/strong> whether the officer was entitled to ask for that document, and whether the refusal hides a misrepresentation finding, are legal questions. Why a lawyer<\/a><\/p>\n

Book a consultation<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The lawyers who review these refusals<\/p>\n

\"SundeepSundeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PrabhpreetPrabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a>\"PardeepPardeep S. Grewal<\/span>Barrister and Solicitor<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n
\nAbout our lawyers<\/summary>\n
\n

Sundeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> founded Lawgical Law Corporation and argues immigration cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court of Canada.<\/p>\n

Prabhpreet Kaur Sangha<\/a><\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n

Pardeep S. Grewal<\/a><\/strong> is an immigration and estates lawyer known for clear communication and practical strategy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

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<\/a> can send it back. Otherwise, a new application with everything requested is usually faster.<\/p>\n

Lawgical Law Corporation<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

What does section 16(1) say?<\/h2>\n

Section 16(1)<\/a>: 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.<\/p>\n

What does the refusal say?<\/h2>\n

The wording I see in these files:<\/p>\n