Why the Canadian court threw out Thomas Partey’s visa appeal

By
Makay
-
0
17
Thomas Partey

Thomas Partey, the Black Stars midfielder, will miss Ghana’s opening match at the 2026 FIFA World Cup against Panama after a Canadian court dismissed his appeal against the denial of a visa to enter the country.

The ruling was delivered on June 16, 2026, by Justice Roger R. Lafrenière in Ottawa.

STOP THAT SCAMMER Verify Numbers on TrustGH

Reports suggest Partey had asked the court to fast-track his application or, alternatively, compel Canadian authorities to reconsider his case on an urgent basis.

He argued that he needed entry clearance to join Ghana’s squad for its World Cup match against Panama in Toronto.

However, the Canadian court rejected the request, asserting that it could not bypass established immigration procedures or issue what would amount to a visa through an interlocutory motion.

Justice Roger R. Lafrenière noted that granting such relief would undermine procedural fairness, as it would deny the government adequate time to respond and bypass key steps such as filing complete records and obtaining leave for judicial review.

Ghanaian Sports Journalist Gary Al-Smith, sharing more updates on the Canadian court decision on X, wrote, “𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯

The Applicant sought interlocutory relief in the form of an order compelling immigration authorities to expedite reconsideration of the refusal decision and to urgently process a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP). Although framed as an injunction, the Court found the relief sought was, in substance, akin to mandamus.

Relying on established Federal Court authority, the judge held that mandamus cannot be obtained outside a proper judicial review framework and cannot be used to compel administrative decision-making on an accelerated basis. The Court further emphasized that granting such relief would effectively amount to an interim declaration of entitlement to enter Canada.

𝘕𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court first found that no serious issue had been established. The judge accepted the Respondent’s position that immigration officers are entitled to rely on “reasonable grounds to believe” under IRPA s.36(1)(c), and are not required to wait for a conviction before making inadmissibility determinations.

The Court further found that it was open to the visa officer to rely on the allegations contained in the foreign indictment when assessing admissibility. The Applicant’s argument that comparative foreign law—such as United States immigration provisions—should influence the interpretation of IRPA was rejected as irrelevant to the statutory framework governing Canadian immigration decisions.

𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥

The Court also rejected claims that the decision was procedurally unfair. It found that the Applicant had been specifically notified through a procedural fairness letter that his admissibility was in question due to ongoing criminal proceedings abroad. Despite this, the Court noted, the Applicant did not meaningfully address the concerns or provide sufficient evidence to rebut them.

𝘕𝘰 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘯

On the second branch of the test, the Court held that the Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. While acknowledging the importance of participation in international sporting events and potential reputational consequences, the Court found the evidence was largely speculative and insufficient.

The judge further noted that much of the reputational harm alleged stemmed not from the immigration decision itself, but from the broader context of ongoing criminal allegations in the United Kingdom, which could not be attributed solely to Canadian authorities.

Balance of convenience favours the public interest

Finally, the Court held that the balance of convenience strongly favoured maintaining the status quo. The decision emphasized the importance of preserving the integrity of Canada’s immigration system and respecting Parliament’s intent in creating a robust inadmissibility regime under IRPA.

Granting the requested relief, the Court found, would improperly interfere with lawful administrative decision-making and undermine the public interest in consistent enforcement of immigration rules relating to serious criminality.

Conclusion

Court dismissed the motion in its entirety, concluding that none of the three requirements under the RJR-MacDonald test had been met.

However, the judge noted the time-sensitive nature of the Applicant’s pending reconsideration and TRP requests and encouraged immigration authorities to process them expeditiously, while making clear that no further judicial intervention would be granted.

The ruling leaves the visa refusal in place, meaning the Partey remains inadmissible to enter Canada unless future administrative relief is granted and he can’t take part in Ghana’s game against Panama or even when the team progresses to the next stage of the tournament”.

See the post below:

Verify Numbers on TrustGH