Docket: IMM-17387-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1955
Toronto, Ontario, December 11, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Furlanetto
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MEHDI ARMANI FAR
AND FATEMAH ASKARI |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the August 15, 2024 decisions [Decisions] of a Visa Officer [Officer] refusing the Applicants’ applications for Temporary Resident Visas [TRV] to travel to Canada for 15-days, pursuant to paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 and section 179 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. The Officer was not satisfied the Applicants had sufficient assets to support the stated purpose for their travel, nor did the Officer find the purpose of the visit consistent with a temporary stay.
[2] For the following reasons, the application is granted as I find the Officer did not provide sufficient justification for their Decisions or a rational chain of analysis in view of the documentation submitted.
I. Background
[3] The Applicants, Mehdi Armani Far [MAF] and Fatemeh Askari [FA], are a married couple who are both Iranian citizens. MAF has two children who reside in Iran. Neither Applicant has any family in Canada.
[4] MAF is a dermatologist who has practiced and managed his own dermatology clinic in Iran for nearly twenty-five years. His wife, FA, works at the clinic as the Laser Department Manager.
[5] On July 20, 2024, the Applicants submitted applications for TRVs to visit Canada from December 23, 2024 to January 6, 2025. The Applicants included banking details with their applications to demonstrate sufficient funds to cover their travel expenses. The Applicants provided bank statements from four national banks, indicating a total balance of approximately $187,410 CAD. The Applicants also provided their 15-day itinerary planned through Rah Tours, a travel agency registered with the Travel Industry Council of Ontario. The application included details of the Applicants’ previous travel to Italy, Switzerland, and Spain.
[6] The Officer refused the applications on the basis that the Applicants had not established sufficient assets to support the stated purpose of travel and that the purpose of the visit to Canada was inconsistent with a temporary stay, given the details provided in the application.
[7] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes provided the following additional reasons for the dismissal of each of the applications:
...The applicant’s assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for themselves (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). Bank statement is not supported with evidence of income. Limited evidence pertaining to the source of these funds. Movement of funds does not include a description or provenance and involve undescribed lump sums. In the absence of satisfactory documentation showing the source of these funds. The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the 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.
II. Analysis
[8] The Applicant raises two issues; the first of which is determinative:
-
Did the Officer provide sufficient justification and a rational chain of analysis for the Decisions?
-
Did the Officer breach procedural fairness by not allowing the Applicants to respond to concerns about the sufficiency of their financial information?
[9] The parties agree that the merits of the Decisions are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. 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. A decision will be reasonable if when read as a whole, and taking into account the administrative setting, it bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99.
[10] In the GCMS notes, the Officer states that they have a concern with the source of funds in the Applicants’ bank accounts. The Officer states that this is because the bank statements are not supported with evidence of income and the “[m]ovement of funds does not include a description or provenance and involves undescribed lump sums”
. The Officer does not engage with the quantum disclosed in the bank statements, nor do they discuss the other evidence provided by the Applicants in support of their application.
[11] As noted earlier, the bank statements are from four national banks and show an equivalent of $187,410 CAD. In addition, MAF provided proof of his dermatology operation licence, technical supervisor license, medical practice license, and membership at the Medical Council of Iran. He also submitted evidence of ownership of the dermatology clinic and proof that it employs over 40 employees, including his wife FA.
[12] Given the large amount of funds available to the Applicants for a 15-day trip, in my view, the Officer should have acknowledged the available funds and then explained why these funds were nonetheless insufficient to support the 15-day trip contemplated: Gill v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1453 at paras 25-27. However, no such analysis is provided.
[13] Instead, the Officer disregards the documentation without acknowledging its content or considering the information in context with the record.
[14] The Respondent argues that the bank statements are incomplete because they did not cover a 6-month period as required by the Ankara Checklist Instructions for TRV. As such, they are inadequate to support the stated purpose of the travel. The Respondent relies on a series of cases for the proposition that an applicant is expected to comply with relevant visa office instructions: Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 [Aghvamiamoli] at para 28; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1307 [Singh]; Bhardwaj v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 736 [Bhardwaj]; Salemi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1858 [Salemi].
[15] However, here the Officer does not refer to the length of the bank transaction history as a reason for questioning the source of funds (contrast with Singh at para 4). As such, the Court cannot rely on the Ankara visa office instructions to supplement the Decisions: Eshun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1211 at para 33; Torkestani v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 1469 at paras 18-20.
[16] Further, in this case, while not including 6-months of bank transaction history from any one bank account, the Applicants provide close to 100 pages of banking information, which spans close to 6-months across all accounts. This is factually distinct from Salemi and Bhardwaj, where the applicants in those cases provided bank certificates with only a balance, and without any detailed transaction history (see Salemi at para 10 and Bhardwaj at para 11).
[17] Similarly, unlike here, in Aghvamiamoli, the Court was concerned that the applicant had not mentioned any meaningful occupation before coming to Canada, which raised concerns about large, lump sum deposits without any explanation (see para 30).
[18] There are no such issues here. Rather, in this case, the Officer had information about the Applicants’ occupation and business, and evidence that MAF’s dermatology clinic was an active business, generating and paying income. Thus, while the Officer was looking for evidence of income deposits, the evidence indicates that the Applicant does not make income as an employee but instead owns his own business where he has been practising as a dermatologist for 25 years.
[19] As noted in Uzoma v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1510 at paragraph 23, where an officer is not satisfied that funds are sufficient or available, there is a need for a discernible explanation that is supported by the record.
[20] In my view, such discernible explanation is not provided in the Decisions. The failure of the Officer to show consideration for the positive factors in the evidentiary record renders the Decisions without a rational chain of analysis.
[21] I similarly find the Officer’s additional conclusion regarding the purpose of the Applicants’ visit lacks justification in view of the record. In the GCMS notes, the Officer states only that the purpose of the Applicants’ visit is inconsistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application.
[22] However, with their application, the Applicants provided a detailed itinerary of their full 15-day trip, proof of return flight information, evidence of immovable assets and strong professional and family ties to Iran, along with prior travel history. While an officer is not required to make findings about each piece of evidence in the record, they must engage with material evidence that is contrary to their conclusion: Taghdiri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1516 at para 29. Here, none of that evidence is addressed in the Decisions.
[23] In this case, the Officer does not engage with any of the factors that point towards granting the application and as such, the Decisions are unreasonable.
[24] For these reasons, the application is granted, and I need not go on to consider the issue of procedural fairness.
[25] There was no question for certification proposed by the parties, and I agree none arises in this case.
Email this Content