Docket: IMM-9718-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1812
Toronto, Ontario, November 14, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
SHAFIQ AHMED |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Shafiq Ahmed [Applicant], is a citizen of Pakistan who applied for a Temporary Resident Visa [TRV] to attend a wedding in Canada along with his spouse. The Applicant’s visa was refused because the visa officer [Officer] was not satisfied that the Applicant had provided complete and truthful information in his application based on the Applicant’s failure to disclose previous TRV refusals for Canada, the United States [U.S.] and Australia.
[2] This is an application for judicial review of the Officer’s decision [Decision]. The Applicant submits that the Officer unreasonably focused on what he did not disclose as opposed to what he did disclose, which included a prior refusal in Canada and an extensive and positive travel history. The Applicant also submits that it was procedurally unfair for the Officer not to have given him a chance to respond to the Officer’s veiled concern with the Applicant’s credibility.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I find the Decision to be both reasonable and fair. The Applicant simply failed to submit a complete application which was his onus to do. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
II. Facts
[4] The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who applied for a TRV to attend a wedding in Canada. The Applicant was refused, but his wife’s application was granted. The Applicant had twice previously applied for and been denied a TRV for Canada. He also had been denied a visa in the U.S. and Australia.
[5] The Applicant’s application was refused because the Officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorised stay period as required by paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. The Officer’s Global Case Management System notes state as follows:
I have reviewed the application. Applicant declares his 2018 TRV refusal but does not declare: - two other TRV refusals - three AUS refusals - two US refusals. I also have concerns regarding employment and education history but am unable to verify given documentation available. On balance, I am not satisfied the applicant has provided complete and truthful information in their application. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.
[6] The Applicant now seeks judicial review of the Decision.
III. Issues and Standard of Review
[7] The Applicant raises the following issues:
Was the Officer’s Decision to refuse the Applicant’s TRV unreasonable?
Did the Officer breach the duty of procedural fairness?
[8] The standard of review applicable to the merits of a visa officer’s refusal of a TRV application is reasonableness (Shoaib v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 479 at para 11; Itsekor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 294 at para 12).
[9] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible and justified (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 12–15, 95 [Vavilov]). Pursuant to the Vavilov framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law”
(Vavilov at para 85).
[10] The Applicant has also raised a question of the fairness of the process of the Officer’s review of his TRV. Issues of procedural fairness are reviewed on a standard akin to correctness (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35, 54-55 [Canadian Pacific], citing Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). The Court looks to ensure that those affected by a decision understand the case they have to meet and have a chance to respond before an impartial decision maker (Canadian Pacific at para 41).
IV. Analysis
A. Was the Decision Reasonable?
[11] In his supporting affidavit, the Applicant states that the short-term purpose of his visit was quite clear and he “meticulously adhered to all the stipulated requirements and provided truthful and comprehensive responses to every inquiry posed by the visa officer.”
[12] At the oral hearing, counsel for the Applicant acknowledged that the Applicant was simply mistaken in overlooking the requirement to disclose refusals in other countries. Counsel focused on the fact that the Applicant did disclose a 2018 refusal and that it was unreasonable for the Officer to have focused only on the TRV refusals without paying attention to the Applicant’s complete travel history, which shows that he has travelled temporarily to many countries, including Sweden, Thailand, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Japan and Turkey.
[13] I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments. I agree with the Respondent that the Officer’s Decision was ultimately based on the failure of the Applicant to meet the requirement to provide a complete application. Section 179 of the IRPR requires that an applicant for a TRV establish that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. The temporary visa application includes a direct question asking whether an applicant has “
been refused a visa or permit, denied entry or ordered to leave Canada or any other country or territory.”
The Applicant failed to answer the question completely. The Officer considered the entirety of the Applicant’s evidence and reasonably concluded that the TRV should not be granted, given the Applicant’s failure to disclose all of his visa refusals. The lack of clarity regarding an applicant’s travel history has been found to be a reasonable concern upon which a refusal may be based (Oyita v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 770 at para 4).
B. Was the Applicant Denied Procedural Fairness?
[14] The Applicant further submits that as a matter of procedural fairness, the Officer was required to alert the Applicant to any concerns the Officer had with the Applicant’s credibility in light of his failure to disclose the entire history of his visa refusals.
[15] I acknowledge that the Officer’s reasons for denying the TRV include the statement “I am not satisfied the applicant has provided complete and truthful information in their application,”
but I do not take this to be a finding with respect to the Applicant’s credibility; rather, it is directed at the Applicant’s failure to make complete disclosure and therefore goes to the sufficiency of the application. Concerns with the sufficiency, adequacy or completeness of an application do not give rise to a duty to alert together with the opportunity to respond (Adewunmi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1186 at para 26).
V. Conclusion
[16] As the Applicant has not discharged his onus of showing the Decision to be unreasonable or procedurally unfair, this application is dismissed.
Email this Content