Docket:
IMM-3136-13
Citation: 2013 FC 1035
Ottawa, Ontario, October
11, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MARYAM ATTARZADEH NIYASARY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Ms Maryam Attarzadeh Niyasary, a citizen of Iran, applied for a multiple-entry temporary resident visa (TRV) that would allow her to visit her
husband, Mr Hamidi, in Canada. Mr Hamidi works as an Imam in Markham, Ontario and possesses a valid work permit for that purpose.
[2]
An immigration officer was not satisfied that Ms
Niyasary would leave Canada when her TRV expired, so denied it. The officer believed
that Ms Niyasary’s family circumstances in Iran and the unstable political
situation there would be unlikely to draw her back to her country of origin.
Similarly, employment, educational, and financial opportunities would likely
cause her to wish to stay in Canada.
[3]
Ms Niyasary argues that the officer’s decision
was unreasonable as it was out of keeping with the evidence. She asks me to
overturn the officer’s decision and order another officer to reconsider her
application.
[4]
I agree that the officer’s decision was
unreasonable. The bulk of the evidence supported Ms Niyasary’s application. The
officer did not explain, with reference to the evidence, why the TRV was
denied.
[5]
The sole issue is whether the officer’s decision
was unreasonable.
II. The
Evidence
[6]
Ms Niyasary had previously had applied for a TRV
and was turned down. In that decision, the officer pointed out that Ms Niyasary’s
children were all adults, she was not employed in Iran, she had not applied for
a visa at the same time as her husband had, and she possessed large cash deposits
whose origins were unknown. On her second application, Ms Niyasary tried to
address concerns that arose from her first application. Accordingly, she
supplied the following:
• a description of her strong family commitments in Iran, which explained why she could not leave Iran when her husband left;
• evidence
that the cash deposits resulted from the sale of property;
• details
of her remaining assets in Iran;
• reference
to her compliance with a previous visa to visit Canada; and
• an expression of her desire to apply for permanent
residence in the future and her concern that failure to abide by the terms of
her TRV would jeopardize her application.
III. Was
the officer’s decision unreasonable?
[7]
It is not clear to me why the officer felt that
the evidence pointed to denial of the TRV. From my review of it, the evidence
favoured granting the visa. While the officer’s conclusion merits deference, it
must be overturned when it not intelligible, transparent and justified. The
officer need not review the evidence extensively, but must convey to the
applicant why her application was dismissed. In my view, the officer failed to
make any reference to evidence that might have justified dismissal of the
application; nor does the record disclose an explanation.
[8]
Accordingly, I find that the decision was
unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion
and Disposition
[9]
The officer failed to provide a justification
for turning down Ms Niyasary’s application for a TRV when, in fact, the
evidence supported her request. In the circumstances, I must conclude that the
officer’s decision was unreasonable, grant this application for judicial
review, and order another officer to consider her application.
[10]
Neither party proposed a question of general
importance to be certified, and none is stated.
Email this Content