JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Background

[1] Mr. Mohammed Amar Shahzad is a 53-year-old citizen of India who has been living and working in Kuwait since at least 2013. He and his wife have two minor children and an adult child. He applied for an open work permit under the International Mobility Program, in order for him and his two minor children to join his wife who works as a cook in Canada.

[2] In support of his application, the applicant filed bank statements from his wife and himself (respectively from Canada and Kuwait), proof of ownership of an immovable property in India (which seems to be a vacant land purchased in 2013), and a letter from his Kuwait employer.

[3] His application was refused based on his significant family ties in Canada, and the lack of evidence that he has permanent ties to Kuwait. As a result, the visa officer was not convinced that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

I. Issues

[4] The only issue raised by this application is whether the visa officer made a reviewable error, and it is uncontested that the applicable standard is that of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65).

II. Analysis

[5] First, the Applicant takes issue with the fact that his ties to Canada (wanting to join his wife with his two minor children) adversely impacted the visa officer’s decision. He argues that the program he is applying under, the International Mobility Program, was expressly enacted so that prospective applicants can temporarily join their families in Canada, if those currently in Canada hold a valid work permit. He acknowledges having significant family ties in Canada but adds that it is precisely the requisite requirement for him to apply under that program.

[6] This might very well be so. But it does not mean that the visa officer is precluded from assessing the strength of an applicant’s family ties in Canada against the strength of that applicant’s family ties in his or her home country. In the case at hand, the Applicant’s family ties in Canada are not limited to his wife, as they would include his two minor children upon their arrivals in Canada. His adult child resides in Kuwait (where, as will be seen later, the Applicant’s status is uncertain), whereas the Applicant’s only family in India is his widowed father, with whom there is no specific evidence of a close relationship.

[7] The real question is whether the Applicant has more incentive to remain in Canada than go back to his country. In light of the evidence put before the visa officer, I am of the view it was reasonable to find that the Applicant did have more incentive to stay in Canada.

[8] With respect to the Applicant’s status in Kuwait, the visa officer noted that his authorization to reside temporarily in that country expires in December 2025. The Applicant states that “there is no suggestion and no evidence that his job with his employers in Kuwait is in jeopardy.” However, it was his burden to provide evidence that it was not. Yet, his employers letter only speaks to the past, how the Applicant has been employed since 1997, and the different promotions he has received. It is silent as to any leave of absence being granted or a guaranteed job being offered upon his return.

[9] The evidence is also silent on the Applicant’s right and/or intention to renew his temporary residence status in Kuwait upon expiration.

[10] The Applicant argues before the Court that even if he is unable to return to Kuwait, he would surely return to India, pointing to his overseas work experience and “substantial assets” in that country. The evidence shows that the only asset the Applicant owns in India would be an approximately 8,000 square-foot plot of land purchased in 2013 that, from what was submitted, has been and is currently vacant.

[11] Given the lack of evidence on certain key facts, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that the Applicant would likely not leave Canada at the end of his stay. Determinations of visa officers, particularly with respect to temporary work visas are afforded considerable deference. The Applicant had a positive obligation to convince the visa officer that he had an incentive to leave at the end of his stay and that he would leave. Unfortunately, he failed to do so.

III. Conclusion

[12] The Applicant has not established that the officer’s decision was unreasonable, and that the Court’s intervention was warranted. His application must therefore fail. The parties have not suggested any question of general importance for certification and no such question arises from the fact of this case.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-16187-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that :

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question of general importance is certified.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: