Aghamahdi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1641

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Following the hearing of this matter, I delivered my judgement from the bench. For the reasons provided in my oral judgement, I granted this application for judicial review.

[2] Ms. Maryam Aghamahdi [Applicant] seeks judicial review of an immigration officer’s [Officer] decision refusing her application for an open work permit, in order to accompany her spouse, who obtained a study permit in Canada.

[3] My decision is based solely the Officer’s conclusions with respect to the Applicant’s family ties in Iran.

[4] The refusal letter, dated March 26, 2024, stated that the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave at the end of her stay because: (1) she does not have significant family ties outside of Canada; and (2) the purpose of her visit is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details she provided.

[5] The Applicant says that the refusal letter’s statement, that she “do[es] not have significant family ties outside Canada,” is unreasonable because she has two children and six siblings who still reside in Iran and this evidence was before the Officer.

[6] I agree. In the circumstances here, it was unreasonable for the Officer to fail to acknowledge, in either the refusal letter or the Global Case Management System notes, the Applicant’s immediate family in Iran, and yet come to the conclusion she had insufficient family ties outside of Canada.

[7] While the Officer was not required to acknowledge every piece of evidence, they were required to engage with evidence before them that ran directly contrary to a central conclusion: Mendez Goyri Perez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 830 at para 29.

[8] The Respondent argues that since the Applicant was willing to travel to Canada and stay here for two years with her husband, the family ties to her husband in Canada appear stronger than her ties to those with her family in Iran. Whatever the merits of this argument may be, it was not a reason provided by the Officer. It would not be appropriate for the Court to buttress the reasons actually provided by the Officer: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 96.

[9] In light of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds raised by the Applicant.

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that

1. The application for judicial review is granted.

2. The matter will be remitted back to a different decision-maker to reconsider.

3. There is no question for certification.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: