Docket: IMM-15856-23
Citation: 2025 FC 127
Toronto, Ontario, January 22, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
YUANZE GAO |
YANG ZHANG |
Applicants |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicants, Yuanze Gao [Principal Applicant], and his spouse, Yang Zhang, are citizens of China who applied for a Temporary Resident Visa [TRV] to visit their family in Canada.
[2] By decisions dated December 4, 2023 [the Decisions], the Applicants’ TRVs were refused because the visa officer [Officer] was not satisfied that the Applicants will leave Canada at the end of their visit. The Applicants seek judicial review of the Officer’s Decisions arguing that they are unreasonable. For the reasons that follow, I agree.
[3] The Decisions were based on two stated factors: (i) the Applicants’ assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel (with the Global Case Management notes explaining that the Bank statements provided do not clarify where the funds originated from, leading the Officer to question whether the Applicants have sufficient funds for their one month visit); and (ii) the purpose of the Applicants’ visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay “given the details provided in the application.”
[4] I agree with the parties that the applicable standard of review of the Decisions is that of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16-17 and 23-25 [Vavilov]). This Court must be satisfied that the Decisions bear the hallmarks of the proper exercise of public power which requires that they be justified, intelligible and transparent to those who are subject to them (Vavilov at paras 95, 99) without reweighing or reassessing the evidence (Vavilov at paras 95, 125).
[5] The Applicants submit that the Officer unreasonably rejected their applications by relying on reasons generated by the Chinook 3+ AI tool, which failed to properly consider and assess their supporting documents and profiles and generated reasons that are not intelligible.
[6] In Mehrara v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1554 [Mehrara], Justice Battista held that the use of the AI program Chinook 3+ by administrative decision makers does not displace the long-standing presumption in administrative law that a decision maker has considered all of the evidence before it (Mehrara at para 46 citing Chatrath v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 958 at para 35).
[7] The onus therefore remains on the Applicants to show that the Officer failed to account for significant or contrary evidence (Mehrara at para 47). I find that the Applicants have done so by pointing to a significant body of financial evidence that was not mentioned by the Officer, as well as evidence which is consistent with a temporary stay.
[8] The Officer referred only to the Applicants’ bank statements (showing savings of $134,000) and failed to acknowledge the Applicants’ other evidence relevant to the Officer’s stated reasons for refusing the TRVs. That evidence included:
(i)the Applicants’ employment letters showing their stable employment profiles and their monthly and annual incomes;
(ii)financial documentation provided by the Applicants’ family members in Canada who plan to host the Applicants during their visit including the family members’ household income (totalling $162,036.00), tax documents, ownership of their residence as well as a letter of support from the Principal Applicant’s sister confirming that she intended to pay for all of the Applicants’ costs in Canada as a wedding gift;
(iii)the sister’s confirmation that the Applicants’ visit is to serve as a belated honeymoon and chance to visit family given that the Applicants were married during the COVID-19 pandemic; and
(iv)evidence of the Principal Applicant’s positive travel history.
[9] While the Respondent submits that the Decisions are reasonable and the Applicants simply failed to submit a complete application which was their onus to do, the Respondent has glossed over obvious problems with the sufficiency of the Officer’s reasons. The Officer failed to address the significant information provided by the Applicants in their applications that runs contrary to the Officer’s stated reasons, leading this Court to question whether the Officer in fact considered it (Ul Zaman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 268 at para 30).
[10] Finally, I note that at the hearing I questioned Counsel for the Respondent about the meaning of the second stated factor for the Officer’s conclusion cited in the Decisions, which reads, “[t]he purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.”
Counsel for the Respondent urged the Court to read the Decisions holistically, suggesting that the Decisions were based on a single reason related to the insufficiency of the Applicants’ financial information. The Decisions expressly refer to “factors”
and identify the insufficiency of financial information and the inconsistency of the stated purpose with a temporary stay as separate bullet points. This makes the Respondent’s reading of the Decisions debatable, rendering this aspect of the Officer’s reasons unintelligible and adds to the unreasonableness of the Decisions.
[11] The Applicants have met their onus of showing that the Decisions are unreasonable. This application is therefore granted.
Email this Content