Date: 20251201

Docket: IMM-18807-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1874

Ottawa, Ontario, December 1, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne

BETWEEN:

SALOMEH AMIRSOLEYMANI

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant seeks the judicial review of an October 2, 2024, decision made by an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer [respectively, the Decision, IRCC and the Officer] that rejected the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident visa [TRV] to visit her twin sister and brother-in-law in Canada for a period of one month.

[2] The Officer rejected the application pursuant to paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] because they were not satisfied that a) the Applicant had significant family ties outside Canada and b) the purpose of her trip to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay given the details in her visa application.

[3] The Applicant has established that the Decision is unreasonable. The Decision fails to grapple with and explain how the pull factors that the Applicant relies upon to establish that she will leave Canada at the end of her stay were considered, particularly when they are squarely contrary to the Officer’s conclusions.

[4] The Applicant’s application for judicial review is therefore granted for the reasons that follow.

I. Preliminary Issues

[5] The Respondent raised “preliminary” issues that could affect the viability of the Applicant’s proceeding during his submissions. The Court directed the Respondent to argue these issues in her submissions on the merits as they appeared to be arguments directed to the merits of the Applicant’s case rather than true preliminary matters to be argued prior to the arguments on the merits. Given the nature of the issues raised, they are being addressed separately from the remainder of the Respondent’s arguments.

1. No personal affidavit from the Applicant

[6] The first issue raised by the Respondent is that the Applicant failed to file a personal affidavit in support of her application for judicial review [the Application] and that, accordingly, only errors that appear on the face of the record may be raised by the Applicant. The Respondent argues that this failure to file a personal affidavit limits the documents and/or errors the Court might consider in determining whether the Applicant’s Application should be granted.

[7] The Respondent raised this argument in her Respondent’s memorandum of argument that was served and filed in support of her argument that leave should not be granted to the Applicant and that this proceeding should be dismissed. The Respondent relies on the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Pathak (C.A.), 1995 CanLII 3591 (FCA), [1995] 2 FC 455 [Pathak] and on Rule 12(1) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22 [the FCCIRPR] in support of her argument.

[8] The Respondent’s argument must be rejected.

[9] The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Pathak concerned an appeal from an order directing the Canadian Human Rights Commission to produce all documents relied on in preparation of an investigator’s report in connection with an application for judicial review. The issue on turned on the interpretation and application of what was then Rule 1612(4) of the Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663 (those rules preceded the current Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [the Rules]). Former Rule 1612 set out the procedure to request what is commonly referred to as a certified tribunal record that may be sought pursuant to Rule 317 of the Rules. The specific issue on appeal was whether an order that required the production of the documents relied on by a specifically named investigator in preparing an investigation report should also be produced.

[10] The Federal Court of Appeal held that only material that is relevant to an application for judicial review is required to be produced by the tribunal, and, that the relevance of the documents requested must be determined in relation to the grounds of review set out in the notice of application (then referred to as an “originating notice of motion”).

[11] Former Rule 1613 required that an originating notice of motion be accompanied by an affidavit that “verified the facts relied on by the applicant” in their “originating notice of motion”. No similar affidavit is required by the Rules today in connection with an notice of application or with an ALJR (Canada (Attorney General) v. Iris Technologies Inc., 2021 FCA 244, at para 39 [Iris 2021]; Rule 5, FCCIRPR).

[12] The Respondent relies on a passage of the Pathak decision that considers what may be relevant to a proceeding and may be requested pursuant to the precursor of Rule 317 of the Rules. The Court wrote, “An applicant cannot seek the judicial review of a decision only because he does not like it. He must know and indicate the irregularities which, according to him, vitiate that decision”. This particular statement refers to the requirements of pleading that is reflected in Rule 301 of the Rules. Rule 301 of the Rules does not require an applicant to file an affidavit that verifies the facts relied upon in support of their application for judicial review. Rather, Rule 301(e) requires that a notice of application set out “a complete and concise statement of the grounds intended to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on” [Iris 2021, at paras 40 and 41]. Nothing in the Pathak decision suggests that only errors that are apparent on the face of the record may be considered by the court on judicial review unless the applicant files a personal affidavit that speaks to errors alleged to be contained in the decision under review.

[13] Pathak is factually and legally distinguishable from this matter and is of no assistance to the Respondent.

[14] The Respondent’s argument must also be rejected because it reads content into Rule 12 of the FCCIRPR which is not contained in the Rule itself. The argument also ignores Rule 10(2)(a)(v) of the FCCIRPR. Rule 12 of the FCCIRPR sets out that “[a]ffidavits filed in connection with an application for leave shall be confined to such evidence as the deponent could give if testifying as a witness before the Court”. Rule 12 does not set out a requirement that the “deponent” of an affidavit filed in connection with ALJR must be sworn by the applicant themself.

[15] Rule 10(2)(a)(v) of the FCCIRPR provides that an applicant shall serve on every respondent who has filed and served a notice of appearance, a record containing one or more supporting affidavits that verify the facts relied on by the applicant in support of the ALJR. Again, there is no requirement that the affidavit filed in an applicant’s record be an affidavit sworn personally by the applicant.

[16] The Court acknowledges the Respondent’s concerns regarding the content and limitations of the Yazdanifar affidavit produced in the Applicant’s Record. Those limitations do not defeat the Applicant’s proceeding for a want of evidence. The Yazdanifar affidavit is admissible, as is its Exhibit A.

2. No material facts alleged in the Applicant’s application for leave and for judicial review (ALJR)

[17] The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s ALJR alleges no material facts in support of any of the grounds set out within it and that the application should be dismissed as a result. The Respondent argues that the ALJR as filed does not properly frame the issues in this proceeding as it does not set out the basis upon which the relief sought may be granted.

[18] The issue identified by the Respondent is that the grounds alleged in the ALJR are generic and general legal bases for judicial review unaccompanied by allegation of material facts. The arguments developed in the Applicant’s memorandum of argument reiterate the legal bases from the ALJR but also include material facts that were not alleged in the ALJR in support of those legal bases. The absence of symmetry in the grounds alleged in the ALJR and those argued in the Applicant’s memorandum of argument is indeed problematic.

[19] Neither of the Respondent’s arguments were advanced in her memorandum of argument filed with the Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the FCCIRPR, in her further memorandum of argument filed pursuant to the order granting leave to the Applicant, or in a motion to be determined either before this hearing or at the outset of this hearing. The Respondent’s arguments are therefore being advanced without appropriate notice to the Applicant. That failure to provide appropriate notice leads the Court to conclude that these arguments cannot be accepted as they constitute a form of trial by ambush. It is not fair to the Applicant for the Court to countenance the Respondents’ arguments made without appropriate notice to the Applicant (SC Prodal 94 SRL v. Spirits International B.V., 2009 FCA 88, at para 15). The argument must therefore be rejected.

[20] The Court must also reject the Respondent’s argument because accepting it at this stage of the proceeding would constitute accepting a collateral attack on the order that granted the Applicant leave (Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 475, at paras 41 to 47). The leave judge was satisfied that the Applicant’s ALJR and supporting Applicant’s Record presented a fairly arguable case that, at the least, was not doomed to fail because of any lapses in pleading. It is not up to this Court to revisit or change that determination at the hearing of the Applicant’s application on its merits.

[21] While it is not necessary to consider the issue further to dispose of this proceeding, it is worthwhile to consider the Respondent’s argument because it raises an issue arising from argued grounds that add material facts that had been omitted from grounds pleaded in an ALJR. While this issue and its resolution is not new, it bears being repeated.

[22] An ALJR that does not plead both a legal basis and material facts specific to the matter is an ALJR that does not meet the requirements of pleading in a judicial review proceeding (JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 250, at paras 42 to 45 [JP Morgan]; Merchant Law Group v. Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184, at para 34). “Grounds” for an ALJR consist of two components: an identified legal basis and the material facts that inform that legal basis (JP Morgan, at paras 38 to 41; Sharif, at paras 28 to 31). Alleging the legal bases described in subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, as “grounds of review” in support of an ALJR without alleging material facts to support the alleged legal basis is insufficient and does not disclose a viable proceeding.

[23] For example, a ground alleged in an ALJR that is limited to language that repeats or paraphrases one of the subparagraphs of section 18.1(4) of the Federal Courts Act and reads, “That the visa officer based its decision upon erroneous findings of fact that is made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it” is insufficient as a matter of pleading and is substantively deficient. This is because the “erroneous findings” and the disregarded “material before it” alleged – the matters of material fact that inform the legal basis alleged – are not alleged, identified or pleaded. What would be required for an acceptable ALJR and a potentially viable proceeding is an allegation of material fact that minimally identifies the “erroneous findings” in the ALJR itself and minimally identifies or describes the “material” that was before the decision-maker that is alleged to have been disregarded.

[24] It may happen that an Applicant is pressed for time to commence their proceeding within the time fixed by statute to file an ALJR. They may have no choice to but to commence a proceeding in a very compressed time frame to preserve a limitation period or to seek a stay of removal. Their ALJR may fail to allege either the legal bases of the argument they will develop, or the minimal material facts that inform the legal arguments they intend to make. It may also be that an applicant commences their proceeding prior to having received the administrative decision maker’s written reasons and therefore cannot identify the legal and factual grounds to be alleged with any specificity or at all. In such cases, the too narrow or thin allegations contained in an ALJR can be rectified by a timely amendment to the ALJR (Iris 2021, at para 41).

[25] What constitutes a timely request for leave to amend an ALJR to appropriately plead grounds in law and in fact will vary depending on the circumstances of any particular matter. Practical considerations related to what may be properly argued in written argument would suggest that an applicant who has filed a relatively bald or incomplete ALJR should seek to amend their ALJR to plead properly as soon as possible once they have identified the arguments they wish to advance in their memorandum of argument because an applicant may not raise an argument that is not set out in its application (Republic of Cyprus (Commerce and Industry) v. International Cheese Council of Canada, 2011 FCA 201, at para 13; AstraZeneca AB v. Apotex Inc., 2006 FC 7, aff’d 2007 FCA 327). Subject to a very narrow exception as discussed in the jurisprudence, a failure to do so may have dire consequences because, as set out above, incomplete or insufficient grounds set out in the ALJR cannot be augmented, developed or completed in the Applicant’s memorandum of argument on the merits at some later date (Iris 2021, at para 42; Tl’azt’en Nation v Sam, 2013 FC 226 at paras 6-7; Hébert Estate v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 1076 at para 53; DA v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1626 at paras 33-39; Brown v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1884 at para 61;).

[26] It is well established that in considering whether leave should be granted, the Court assesses whether an ALJR discloses a fairly arguable case (Rule 15 of the FCCIRPR; Bains v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 47 Admin. L.R. 317, 109 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.); Kreishan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 223, at para 18). As such, it is open to a respondent to challenge an ALJR on the basis that it does not allege grounds that make out a viable proceeding and therefore does not disclose a fairly arguable case in its responding memorandum of argument.

II. The Facts

[27] The Applicant applied for a TRV on September 13, 2023, in connection with a planned visit to Canada between December 29, 2023, and January 28, 2024. Her application was rejected because a visa officer decided that they were not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay.

[28] The Applicant requested that the decision be reconsidered and submitted additional documentation in support of her application. A different visa officer reconsidered the original decision and determined that the original decision contained no error. The original decision was not disturbed.

[29] The Applicant sought judicial review of the reconsideration decision in January 2024. By May 2024, the Applicant’s proceeding had been resolved. The Minister agreed that the Applicant’s application would be re-determined by another decision maker and that the Applicant would be provided with an opportunity to submit additional and/or updated information.

[30] The Applicant therefore submitted additional and/or updated information in support of her application. The information provided contemplated that the Applicant would visit her sister and brother-in-law in Canada from July 25 to August 25, 2024.

[31] The Applicant’s complete application materials, including the material from her original application, her request for redetermination and her updated application contained the following:

• a)A photo of the Applicant;

• b)The Applicant’s representative’s submission letter;

• c)A copy of the Applicant’s current passport;

• d)A copy of the Applicant’s older and expired passports with her travel history;

• e)The Applicant’s sister’s letter of invitation, citizenship certificate, proof of employment, copies of payslips, bank account statements, and Notice of Assessment for 2022;

• f)Copies of the Applicant’s and her sister’s birth certificates;

• g)The Applicant’s Purpose of Travel letter for 2023, as well as a package containing a cover letter that set out the Applicant’s family ties outside of Canada, the purpose of her intended visit, her travel history, her work commitments and responsibilities in Tehran, and her assurance of departure;

• h)The Applicant’s travel itinerary for the intended 2023 trip and for the intended 2024 trip, along with copies of her flight tickets for arriving and departing from Canada;

• i)The Applicant’s CV, letter of employment and confirmed leave from work for a one-month holiday;

• j)Proof of the Applicant’s Social Insurance Records;

• k)Copies of two certified and translated medical notes from the Applicant’s mother’s physicians in Tehran outlining that the Applicant’s mother is diagnosed with high-grade serous carcinoma, requires chemotherapy, and requires a companion to provide care and nursing during her treatment and for some time after;

• l)Copies of the Applicant’s bank account statements and a copy of her deed to her home; and,

• m)The Applicant’s completed and signed IMM-5257E, IMM-5645E and IMM- 5476E forms

[32] The Applicant’s application sets out the following key information and evidence.

[33] The Applicant is a citizen of Iran. She had been invited by her twin sister and her brother-in-law, both of whom are gainfully employed Canadian citizens, to visit them in Toronto for a period of one month. The intended 2023-2024 visit offered the Applicant and her sister an opportunity to reconnect after the COVID-19 pandemic. The intended summer 2024 visit offered the Applicant and her sister the opportunity to celebrate their birthday together and, among other things, the opportunity to attend a concert together. The Applicant submitted her sister’s letters of invitation and detailed itineraries, and travel plans for her one month visit for both the intended 2023-2024 visit and the summer 2024 visit. The intended 2023-2024 visit itinerary’s last week reads as follows:

Week 4: Farewell Toronto and Reflecting on Memories

Returning to Toronto, we will dedicate our final days to savouring the remaining moments with my sister and reflecting on our shared experiences.

The focus will be quality time with my sister, seeing some friends, sharing stories, and cherishing the moments we've created together. I will depart Toronto with full hearts, grateful for the experiences and eager to share my stories and memories with loved ones. I am thankful for this opportunity.

[34] The intended summer 2024 visit’s itinerary ends as follows:

Week 4: Leisure

Day 19-20: Visit High Park for a leisurely walk and enjoy a picnic.

Day 21: Shopping at Eaton Centre and browsing boutiques in nearby areas.

Day 22-23: Enjoy a boat cruise around Toronto Harbour and the surrounding waterfront.

Day 24-25: Final preparations for departure; enjoy farewell meals with friends or family in the city.

Day 26-27: Last-minute shopping and packing.

Departure:

Day 28: Departure from Toronto, carrying back unforgettable memories, celebrating our shared birthday and enjoying the rich daily life that has deepened familial bonds.

[35] The Applicant submitted two letters from her employer, Persian Co., signed by its Chief Executive Officer in support of her application. Her employer’s letters set out that she has been employed by Persian Co. since July 2016 and was promoted to the position of Director Architect in April 2023. The letters also set out that the Applicant leads a team of eight individuals and effectively manages and oversees the execution of substantial projects in Iran. In doing so, she is responsible for project management, design coordination, on-site supervision, project coordination, work drawings reviews, reporting, budgeting, and scheduling. The first letter ended with the Applicant’s employer stating: “We have approved her request for a one-month vacation start December 28, 2023, to January 30, 2024”. The second letter concluded with her employer stating: “We have approved her request for a one-month vacation start July 25, 2024, to August 25, 2024”.

[36] The Applicant’s TRV application also included cover letters that set out the purpose of her intended travel to Canada as well as additional details about herself, her background, employment and community engagement, her family, and her intended return to Tehran when her visit with her sister would be completed.

[37] The letters she submitted set out that the purpose of her travel was to visit her sister and brother-in-law in Canada for a limited time. She explained why it would be more practical for her to travel to Canada rather than for her sister to travel to Tehran, noting her sister’s more demanding schedule. The Applicant’s letter for her intended December 2023 to January 2024 visit also set out as follows:

Purpose of travel: My primary objective is to visit my sister and brother-in-law in Canada. Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions over the past four years, we have not had the opportunity to reunite. During my stay in Canada, I will visit some friends, explore local tourist attractions such as Niagara Falls, Ontario national parks and historic sites, and spend quality time with my sister.

[…]

Background: I am an Architect Director at Persian Co. located at Unit 5, 5th Floor, No. 26, 2nd St., Yousefabad, Tehran, Iran, Tel: (+9821) 883-95235. (See Letter of Employment). I hold a master’s degree in architecture and an architectural Supervision license, qualifying me as a licensed Architect. I also have Executive Skills in Buildings, TUV NORD certification from the Iranian Architecture Center, and I have been a Licensed Architect since March 2016. and I will continue in this role in the future. My primary responsibilities involve designing, coordinating projects, producing, and reviewing working drawings, reports, budgets and time schedules.

Social and Economic Ties: I have a secure job position that guarantees stable income and ongoing social insurance. (Please see Employment Letter, Pay Slips, and Insurance Payment Record) Additionally, I teach at two institutions, where I have responsibilities toward my colleagues and students. As part of my commitments, I am an active member of the Tehran Tennis Association and collaborate with them on project-based initiatives. I regularly conduct site visits to supervise and inspect sports facility projects. This engagement demonstrates my commitment to maintaining the proper management and quality of sports infrastructure projects. (I attached the Tehran Tennis Association Letter). Additionally, I have a project, the Elit Farmaniyeh Building design mentioned in my Employment letter, that requires my presence to ensure the project's successful and timely completion as per the contract by February 20, 2024, making January the most suitable time for us. (I attached the contract).

Family Ties: I am the only child living with my parents, and I care for them both. My twin sister is living in Canada permanently. My parents need continuous medical attention and daily assistance with personal routines, shopping, and travelling around. For the last four years, I have been riding to doctors’ offices regularly to monitor their condition and obtain prescriptions. My father is undergoing treatment and needs regular check-ups, and my mother is battling cancer, which requires ongoing care. Because of their conditions, I need to shorten my visit to provide them daily assistance and medical attention. We've arranged for a nurse to help during my absence. (I attached a Medical Letter from my mother's physician.) Moreover, we have an upcoming family commitment for my cousin’s wedding in February, which is significant and requires my presence. I need to be back by then to attend her wedding ceremony.

To summarize, I have family and social commitment plus economic stability and professional life as ties to my home country, and therefore, at this moment, I strongly assert that I have no intention or desire to stay longer in Canada, as noted in this letter and my permission allowed.

[38] The Applicant’s submitted a second cover letter in support of her request for a reconsideration of the initial refusal of her application. In that letter, the Applicant wrote:

Dear Visa Officer,

I am writing to request a reconsideration of my visitor visa application, which was declined on May 16, 2023. I miss my sister and wish to join her for the New Year's Eve celebration in Canada. I intend to visit from December 29, 2023, to January 28, 2024, for a one-month stay. I am committed to abiding by all visa regulations and have attached relevant documents supporting my request.

Significant Family Ties Outside Canada:

• I am the only child living with my parents, and I care for them both. My twin sister is living in Canada permanently. My parents need continuous medical attention and daily assistance with personal routines, shopping, and travelling around. For the last four years, I have been riding to doctors’ offices regularly to monitor their condition and obtain prescriptions. I wish to inform you that we discovered that my mother was diagnosed with cancer approximately three months ago. This news shocked our family, drastically altering our lives overnight. It was an emotional moment for all of us, leaving us unsure of how to navigate this new reality. Thankfully, following surgery, my mother's condition has improved, and she is currently under treatment and has doctor visits and tests each month. (I attached a Medical Letter from my mother's physician.)

• During my time in Toronto, the nurse I have contracted with for a month will care for my parents.

• Moreover, I have an upcoming family commitment in February - my cousin’s wedding, which holds significant importance to me and requires my presence. I need to be back by then to attend her wedding ceremony.

[…]

Assurance of Departure:

• I fully understand the importance of assuring my departure within the authorized period. My commitment to returning to my home country is underlined by essential medical tests and treatments scheduled for my mother. Considering her unique medical condition, my presence in Iran is critical. I am responsible for the care of both my parents, and with my twin sister permanently residing in Canada, I am the main person who ensures continuous medical attention and daily assistance with personal routine arrangements that my parents rely on. Their well-being greatly depends on my support and presence, which makes my prompt return to Iran an absolute priority.

• Furthermore, concerning my job, I have a pressing commitment related to one of my projects (the Design of the Elit Farmaniyeh Building mentioned in my Employment letter), which must be completed and delivered by the 20th of February 2024. This requires my physical presence and personal attention to ensure the successful execution and timely fulfillment of the contractual obligations (I attached the Contract).

In conclusion, I kindly request your reconsideration of my visitor visa application. I intend to reunite with my sister; that would be refreshing for both of us and explore Canada. I am fully committed to abiding by the terms of my visa, returning to Iran promptly, and resuming my professional responsibilities. Thank you for your understanding and consideration.

[39] Following her first application for leave and for judicial review and its resolution, the Applicant submitted an updated cover letter in support of her TRV application to visit her sister in Toronto in the summer of 2024. Much like her first letter and the second letter submitted in connection with her reconsideration request, the Applicant wrote:

I will come to Canada on or around July 25, 2024, for a stay of approximately one month, and I will leave Canada on August 23, 2024. During this time, I will be guested at my twin sister's house at the address mentioned above, and I will provide for my Canadian expenses. (I attached the Invitation Letter and Bank Account Statement/Balance.)

Purpose of travel: My primary objective is to visit my sister and brother-in-law in Canada. This visit is significant as it allows us to spend quality time together. Although we haven’t been able to celebrate our birthdays together for the past four years, we are eager to do so this year. An exciting highlight of our reunion will be attending a Jennifer Lopez concert in Toronto on August 3rd, fulfilling a long-held dream since our teenage years to see our favourite artist perform live.

[…]

Background: I am an Architect Director at Persian Co. located at Unit 5, 5 Floor, No. 26, 2 St., Yousefabad, Tehran, Iran, Tel: (+9821) 883-95235. (See Letter of Employment). I also have Executive Skills in Buildings, TUV NORD certification from the Iranian Architecture Center, and I have been a Licensed Architect since March 2016. and I will continue in this role in the future. My primary responsibilities involve designing, coordinating projects, producing, and reviewing working drawings, reports, budgets and time schedules.

Social and Economic Ties: I have a secure job position that guarantees stable income and ongoing social insurance. Additionally, I teach at two institutions, where I have responsibilities toward my colleagues and students. As part of my commitments, I am an active member of the Tehran Tennis Association and collaborate with them on project-based initiatives. I regularly conduct site visits to supervise and inspect sports facility projects. This engagement demonstrates my commitment to maintaining the proper management and quality of sports infrastructure projects.

Family Ties: I am the only child living with my parents, and I care for them both. My twin sister is living in Canada permanently. My parents need continuous medical attention and daily assistance with personal routines, shopping, and travelling around. I have been riding to doctors' offices regularly for five years to monitor their condition and obtain prescriptions. My father is undergoing treatment and needs regular check-ups, and my mother is battling cancer, which requires ongoing care. Because of their conditions, I need to shorten my visit to provide them with daily assistance and medical attention.

[40] The Officer rejected the Applicant’s TRV application.

III. The Decision

[41] On October 2, 2024, IRCC issued a refusal letter to the Applicant. The letter set out the reasons for refusal as follows:

I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-227/section-179.html). I am refusing your application because you have not established that you will leave Canada, based on the following factors:

• You do not have significant family ties outside Canada.

• The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.

[42] The Officer’s notes in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] complete the Decision (De Hoedt Daniel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1391 at para 51; Afridi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 193 at para 20; Muthui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 105 at para 3).

[43] The Officer’s GCMS entry dated October 2, 2024, sets out the reasoning underlying their Decision as follows, reformatted for ease of reference:

I have reviewed the application for re-determination. After re-opening the application, PA was given 10 days to provide updated documentation. PA provided updated client information. I have reviewed all the documentation provided for this application.

Summary of key findings is below: Applicant is a single, 35 year old Iranian National coming to Canada for the purpose of visiting twin sister.

Upon reviewing updated/original provided documentation; I have noted that applicant's parents currently hold valid temporary resident visas. Should applicant's parents [decide] to accompanying applicant on this trip, then the ties to home country will be significantly diminished and motivation to return to home country will decrease exponentially.

Updated and original medical note for applicant's mother from Dr. Faramarz Mesbah, a gynecologist and obstetrician in Iran has been reviewed, noted and put into consideration.

My key findings between both medical notes are as follows: Applicant's mother underwent a hysterectomy surgery on May 22nd 2023 due to an ovarian cyst; original medical note stated recovery period would be 1 year from surgery date. Removed ovarian cyst was sent to pathology and results of the pathology showed the cyst was a high grade Serous Carcinoma. Patient (applicant's mother) was recommended to do a few sessions of chemotherapy by an oncologist. No medical note provided by the oncologist regarding treatment for applicant's mother. Updated medical note, dated for May 21st 2024, has stated applicants mother would require companion to provide care and nursing during the said period, however, medical note did not specify said period, as the original medical document stated a year for recovery, which has [elapsed] at the time of the assessment of this application.

Duration of visit is approximately 1 month. Applicant's travel history provided, reviewed and noted. Applicant's travel history is not sufficient enough to count as a positive in my assessment of this judicial review application.

The purpose of visit does not appear reasonable given the applicant’s provided updated/additional information and therefore I am not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of the period of authorized stay should their application decision be within their favour.

Based on the information provided and thoroughly reviewed. I am not satisfied that the applicant has sufficient pull factor back in home country to satisfy me that the applicant is a genuine visitor that would leave Canada at the end of their duration of authorized stay.

Based on the new/updated information provided, the purpose of visit does not appear reasonable given the applicant’s provided information and therefore I am not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada. For the reasons above, I have refused this application. Re-determination complete.

(Emphasis added)

IV. Issue

[44] The sole issue is whether the Decision is reasonable.

[45] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review is the reasonableness standard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. The Court agrees with the parties.

V. The Standard of Review

[46] Reasonableness is a deferential standard of review (Vavilov at paras 12-13). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible, and justified (Vavilov at para 15). 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 that constrain the decision maker (Vavilov at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences (Vavilov at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135).

[47] An applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision they seek to be reviewed is unreasonable. For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish that the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant (Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances (Vavilov at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” (Vavilov at para 100). Reasonableness review is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error” (Vavilov, at para 102).

[48] It is not the Court’s function on judicial review to reweigh or second-guess the evidence that was led before the Decision Maker. The administrative decision maker alone considers the evidence, decides on issues of admissibility and weight, assesses whether inferences may be drawn, and makes a decision. The reviewing court can interfere only where the decision maker has committed fundamental errors in fact-finding that undermine the acceptability of the decision under review (Doyle v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237, at para 3).

[49] Determining the reasonableness of a visa officer’s decision on a TRV application that an applicant will not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay requires the Court to discern whether the visa officer assessed the factors that might encourage the applicant to want to stay in Canada as well as the factors that might pull them back to their home country. These are often referred to as “push and pull factors” in the jurisprudence.

[50] Mr. Justice William F. Pentney neatly summarized some of the dynamics involved in a reasonableness review of a TRV decision in Kashefi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856, at paras 13 and 14 as follows:

[13] A core underlying objective of the Vavilov framework of judicial review is to encourage administrative decision-makers, like the Visa Officer, to justify their decisions with reasons that demonstrate an engagement with the particular circumstances of each case, considered in light of the legal framework that applies. The Supreme Court of Canada speaks about a “culture of justification.” In my view, the Officer’s decision in this case falls short because it does not show an actual engagement with the specific situation of these particular Applicants.

[14] In finding the decision unreasonable, I want to underline several points. First, the context for the decision is important. This Court has often acknowledged that reasons in TRV cases can be brief, because Officers face a deluge of cases and in view of the interests of the individuals affected by such decisions. Second, in making such decisions, Officers can bring their expertise concerning country conditions and many other factors to bear in exercising the wide discretion afforded to them by the law. It would have been reasonable for the Officer’s assessment of the socio-economic situation of the Applicants to be informed by such knowledge; but that needed to be explained, if even briefly. Finally, visa officers exercise broad discretion under the law, and the onus lies with the Applicants to demonstrate that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. Decisions on TRV applications deserve deference in view of the breadth of the Officer’s discretion. My decision in this case should not be interpreted as questioning any of these principles.

[51] As was observed by Madam Justice Phuong T.V. Ngo in Akhoondian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1181, at paras 11 and 13:

[11] (…) Family connections in Canada and the country of origin are obviously relevant to this assessment (Kashefi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856 at para 9 [Kashefi]). However, to be reasonable, a decision needs to demonstrate an engagement with the specific facts of the case and provide sufficient detail to justify the result. Short, focused and clear reasons will be sufficient, and not every detail needs to be addressed. (Kashefi at paras 14-15).

[…]

[13] In some cases, boilerplate language, read with the record holistically, can allow the Court to understand the decision under review. However, when boilerplate reasons read along with the record do not allow the Court to assess whether the proper criteria were applied, do not satisfy the Court that the reasoning “adds up”, or do not provide insight into an officer’s reasoning process, it can lack the requisite justification, intelligibility and transparency to avoid judicial interference (Munzhurov v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 657 at para 21-23, other citations omitted). Even where the obligation to give reasons is minimal, as with TRV applications, the Court cannot be left to speculate as to the reasons for a decision, or attempt to fill in those reasons on behalf of a decision-maker when they are not clear from the decision read in light of the record (Afuah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 596 at para 17).

[52] Finally, while the following comments by Mr. Justice Denis Gascon in Taghizadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 809, at paras 18 to 20, were made in the context of a study permit application, in my view they apply equally and with equal force in the context of a TRV application for a visitor’s visa:

[18] It is not disputed that study permit applicants bear the burden of satisfying visa officers that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay (Khoshfam at para 24; Penez at para 10). To this effect, visa officers have a high level of expertise and a wide discretion in assessing the evidence to determine whether this requirement is met, and their decisions are entitled to deference (Khoshfam at para 24; Nimely v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 282 at para 7 [Nimely]; Penez at para 10).

[19] Moreover, visa officers are not required to provide extensive reasons for their decision in view of the large number of decisions they are required to process (Khoshfam at para 25; Afuah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 596 at paras 10–11; Nimely at para 7).

[20] That said, while visa officers need not spell out each of the details and facets of an issue when making their decision, they cannot act without regard to the evidence. Consequently, a blanket statement that a decision maker has considered all the evidence will not suffice when the evidence omitted from the discussion in their reasons appears to squarely contradict their finding (Kapenda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 821 at para 24 [Kapenda]; Kavugho-Mission at para 23; Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), [1998] FCJ No 1425 (QL) at para 17).

VI. The Legal Framework

[53] The legal framework applicable to applications for temporary resident visas such as the one sought by the Applicant in this proceeding is set out in subsection 11(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, along with sections 179, 191 and 192 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. Those provisions read as follows.

 

[54] By way of oversimplification, the general legislative scheme is that a foreign national who wants to visit someone in Canada is required to apply for the issue of a TRV. While there are several requirements to be met by a TRV applicant before the visa may be issued, one of the key requirements is that they must show that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

VII. Arguments and Analysis

[55] The Applicant raises a number of arguments that are focussed on the unreasonableness of the Decision in some detail. The Applicant argues that the Officer’s reasons are clearly lacking and insufficient to understand the basis for the rejection of her application, that the Officer insufficiently considers her family ties in Tehran, and that there is no apparent consideration of the her stable employment, leave approval from her employer, savings and assets in Iran. The essence of the Applicant’s arguments is that the Officer failed to consider the evidence in the record before them reasonably or rationally.

[56] The Respondent argues that the Decision is reasonable and that there is no basis upon which the Court should interfere with it. The Respondent argues on the basis of Ocran v Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 175 at para 25, Bahr v Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 527 at para 42, and Mohammed v Canada (MCI), 2017 FC 992 at para 7, among others, that the Officer reasonably found that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit was not consistent with a temporary stay given the details she had provided in her application. The Respondent argues that the Officer was entitled to use their general experience to draw inferences and reach conclusions on the basis of information that the Applicant provided or failed to provide. The Respondent also argues that the Officer met their duty to give reasons.

[57] Both parties have cited and relied upon jurisprudence that supports their respective legal positions. It is not necessary to consider each of the parties’ explicit legal arguments in detail because the outcome of this proceeding turns on the facts. The Officer’s failure to grapple with the Applicant’s economic, social, professional, and personal ties to Tehran as pull factors that are contrary to the Officer’s conclusion makes the Decision irrational, unjustified and unreasonable.

[58] The Respondent is correct in her argument that the Officer is presumed to have considered all of the information in the application before them. However, where there is evidence in the record that appears to squarely contradict their finding, then the Officer has a duty to engage with that evidence and explain how it was considered. (Kapenda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 821 at para 24). As explained in Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), [1998] FCJ No 1425 (QL) at para 17:

[17] However, the more important the evidence that is not mentioned specifically and analyzed in the agency's reasons, the more willing a court may be to infer from the silence that the agency made an erroneous finding of fact "without regard to the evidence": Bains v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 1993 CanLII 17660 (FC), 63 F.T.R. 312 (F.C.T.D.). In other words, the agency’s burden of explanation increases with the relevance of the evidence in question to the disputed facts. Thus, a blanket statement that the agency has considered all the evidence will not suffice when the evidence omitted from any discussion in the reasons appears squarely to contradict the agency's finding of fact. Moreover, when the agency refers in some detail to evidence supporting its finding, but is silent on evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion, it may be easier to infer that the agency overlooked the contradictory evidence when making its finding of fact.

[59] In this case, the Officer focussed on the Applicant’s parents and the hypothesis that the Applicant’s family ties to Iran would decrease exponentially should her parents accompany her on her intended trip to Canada. There is no evidence in the record that suggests that the Applicant’s parents: a) currently hold TRVs for Canada as found by the Officer in the GCMS notes; b) intend to travel to Canada during the same or a similar time period as the Applicant intends to travel to Canada; or, c) have their health conditions sufficiently under control to undertake travel to Canada for any period of time that coincides with the Applicant’s intended travel or at all. The Officer’s consideration and reliance on facts that are not in the record and their importance in the Officer’s reasoning that the Applicant’s parents’ residence in Tehran is not a sufficient pull factor is neither justified by the record nor rational.

[60] The Officer was also concerned with the Applicant’s parents’ health and the evolution of the Applicant’s mother’s care needs between the time of the Applicant’s first application in September 2023 and the additional documentation provided by the Applicant in support the re-determination of her application in May 2024.

[61] It was open to the Officer to consider whether the Applicant’s family ties in Tehran are a pull factor that could be weakened by the evolution of her parents’ respective medical conditions. In this case, the Applicant had submitted two medical notes regarding her mother’s care needs. The first brief medical note appears to be from August 2023 and sets out that the Applicant’s mother had been recommended chemotherapy treatments. The translated medical note sets out that, “Since the treatment continues for at least one year and causes patient weakness, she needs a companion to provide care during the said period.” The translated updated medical note appears to be from May 2024 and sets out that “Since the treatment continues for some time to come and causes patient weakness, she needs a companion to provide care and nursing during the said period.” The Officer considered that the updated medical note was not as specific in its description of the time during which the Applicant’s mother required a companion for her chemotherapy treatment because the second note referred to “continues for some time” rather the more specific “continues for at least one year”.

[62] The Court infers from the Officer’s notes that they were not satisfied with the apparent duration of the Applicant’s mother’s care needs as a pull factor that would support the Applicant returning to Tehran at the end of her authorized stay in Canada. While it was open to the Officer to consider the duration of the Applicant’s mother’s companion care requirement as a pull factor acting upon the Applicant, it was unreasonable for the Officer to fail to explain at least minimally how this pull factor was considered after having considered the content of the medical notes. The Officer failed to explain how the Applicant’s mother’s care and/or companion requirements may impact the Applicant’s family ties in Tehran, particularly when the Applicant states repeatedly that she lives in Tehran as do her parents, actively cares for them both, and intends to return to Tehran to continue taking care of them and assist them with their medical and daily needs.

[63] The Decision is also unreasonable due to its failure to explain whether or how the Applicant’s evidence of her economic, social and professional ties to Tehran were considered or discounted as pull factors given that they set out rational reasons for the Applicant to return to Tehran at the end of her authorized stay in Canada. The Applicant is a professional architect and has been for nearly 10 years, is gainfully employed as an architect, is a supervisor of several staff after having been promoted in 2023 and has clear professional commitments to on-going projects in Tehran that require her personal attention on the ground in Tehran. The Applicant also has teaching engagements and social engagements that include project-based initiatives in Tehran. Each of these facts are facts that may be considered as pull factors that support the Applicant’s statements that she will leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. The failure to engage with them when they appear to squarely contradict the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant will not leave Canada at the end of her stay is unjustified and unreasonable.

VIII. Conclusions

[64] For the reasons given above, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has established that the Decision suffers from fatal flaws that make it unreasonable.

[65] The Applicants’ application is therefore granted.

[66] The parties agree and the Court with them that this proceeding does not give rise to a serious question of general importance to be certified pursuant to section 79 of the IRPA.

 

JUDGMENT in IMM-18807-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The Applicant’s application for judicial review is granted.

2. The Officer’s decision dated October 2, 2024, is hereby quashed and set aside.

3. This matter is remitted to be redetermined in accordance with the general direction set out in these reasons by a visa officer other than any visa officer who has previously made a decision in connection with the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident visa.

4. The Applicant shall be provided a meaningful opportunity to submit additional and/or updated documentation for the purposes of the redetermination of her application.

5. There is no serious question of general importance to be certified pursuant to section 79 of the IRPA.

6. The whole, without costs.

“Benoit M. Duchesne”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:	IMM-18807-24
STYLE OF CAUSE:	SALOMEH AMIRSOLEYMANI v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING:	TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING:	november 20, 2025
judgment AND REASONS:	duchesne, j.
DATED:	december 1, 2025

APPEARANCES:

James Morrison	For The Applicant
Teresa Ramnarine	For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Zarei Law Professional Corporation Toronto, Ontario	For The Applicant
Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario	For The Respondent