Docket: IMM-15759-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2068
Toronto, Ontario, December 19, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant
BETWEEN: |
SARA MARZBAN
|
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. OVERVIEW
[1] The Applicant is a citizen of Iran. She wished to come to Canada to attend an international conference, related to her work as a pathology lab expert. A Visa Officer rejected her application for a temporary resident visa [TRV] for a number of reasons, one of which was that she had significant family ties in Canada and therefore failed to establish that she would leave this country at the end of her stay.
[2] I have found that the Officer’s reasons in relation to this finding lacked justification. Given the importance of this finding to the visa refusal, the decision is unreasonable. This application for judicial review will therefore be granted.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
[3] Ms. Marzban has lived in Iran for her whole life, though she has visited other countries in recent years. She currently works as a Pathology Lab Expert at Hiva Pathobiology Laboratory. She applied for a TRV in order to attend the International Conference on Science, Health and Medicine, and to visit her second cousin who is a Canadian permanent resident.
[4] In support of her application, the Applicant submitted the following:
a)A detailed Statement of Purpose;
b)A letter of invitation from her second cousin, confirming she would be residing with him during her stay;
c)Her family information;
d)Proof of funds, showing an account balance of CAD $10,999.31;
e)Confirmation of her employment from Hiva Pathobiology Laboratory; and
f)Her itinerary and travel documents, showing a planned arrival of December 20, 2023 and planned departure of December 30, 2023.
B. Decision under Review
[5] A Visa Officer refused the Applicant’s TRV by letter dated December 7, 2023. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay, because a) she has significant family ties in Canada, and b) the purpose of her visit was not consistent with a temporary stay.
[6] In notes entered into the Global Case Management System [GCMS], which form part of the reasons for decision, the Officer stated:
The applicant has significant family ties in Canada. Given family ties or economic motives to remain in Canada, the applicant's incentives to remain in Canada may outweigh their ties to their home country. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Foss history of the host noted. The purpose of visit does not appear reasonable given the applicant’s socio-economic situation and therefore I am not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of the period of authorized stay. Travel history is insufficient to count as a positive factor in my assessment.
III. ISSUES
[7] The Applicant argues that the rejection of her TRV application was unreasonable, and that it breached procedural fairness. For the reasons that follow, I find that the Officer’s decision lacked justification and, as such, was unreasonable. This provides a sufficient basis on which to grant this application for judicial review and, as such, I will not consider the Applicant’s arguments related to procedural fairness. I will note, however, that I saw no merit in the Applicant’s arguments in this regard.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[8] The standard of review applicable to the substance of a visa officer’s decision is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 23 [Vavilov].
V. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Principles
[9] A number of legal principles have emerged from the numerous recent decisions of this Court on TRV applications. These include the following:
The administrative setting of TRV applications is relevant to the process of judicial review – TRV decisions must be made rapidly, and in high volume, and visa officers have only a minimal duty to give reasons: Amini v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 653 at para 4.
However, a minimal duty should not be mistaken for no duty – a reasonable decision must explain the result, and be justified in light of the law and the key facts: Shirazi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 822 at para 14; Nesarzadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 568 at para 5.
TRV decisions do not typically result in “particularly harsh consequences for the affected individual”
– this reinforces the reality that TRV decisions need not be lengthy or detailed: Vavilov at para 133.
The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy an officer that they meet applicable legal requirements, including that they will leave at the end of their authorized stay: Safarian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 775 at para 2.
It is not open to the parties on judicial review to buttress or supplement the Officer’s decision, but at the same time, judicial review is not a treasure hunt for errors in the reasons actually provided by the Officer: Jafarkhani v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2024 FC 1633 at para 5; Vavilov at para 102.
[10] In this case, I find the Officer’s reasons for refusing the Applicant’s TRV application do not satisfy the minimal reasons requirement of this context. As noted above, the Officer appears to have rejected the application on the primary basis of the Applicant’s “significant family ties in Canada.”
The only relative that the Applicant has in Canada is her second cousin, with whom she planned to stay during her visit in Canada.
[11] In her application, the Applicant indicated that she lives with her parents in Iran, and that she is their sole source of support. She stated:
I live with my father and mother at the present time. My parents are old and need me to take care of them. They have nobody except me because my only sister lives in Australia. My parents will guarantee my return to Iran.
[12] This evidence was highly relevant to the Officer’s analysis of the Applicant’s family ties, particularly in view of the fact that her only relative in Canada is a second cousin. Visa officer decisions attract deference. That said, the Officer’s failure to demonstrate any consideration of the Applicant’s family obligations in Iran, and the failure to provide any indication that these obligations were weighed against the presence of a relatively distant Canadian relative indicates a lack of adequate justification. Similar to the findings of my colleague Justice Zinn in Groohi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 837 at para 17, the Officer’s error in this case lay in failing to consider that the Applicant’s strongest family ties were in Iran, rather than in Canada.
[13] Further, while each case turns on its own facts, I note that in Akinremi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 723, my colleague Justice Tsimberis recently considered an application for judicial review, in which an officer similarly relied on the applicants’ family ties in Canada to reject a TRV application. Of note, in that case, the applicants had a daughter in Canada. Despite this objectively close family relationship, Justice Tsimberis granted the application because the visa officer made no mention of the applicants’ other family ties in their country of origin. In that case, as in this one, the crux of the problem was the lack of any weighing of the Applicant’s ties in Canada, with those abroad.
[14] In the circumstances of this case, the Officer’s finding in respect of the Applicant’s family members was sufficiently central to the TRV rejection that it renders the decision unreasonable.
VI. CONCLUSION
[15] For the brief reasons set out above, I will grant this application for judicial review. The parties did not propose a question for certification and I agree that none arises.
Email this Content