Docket: IMM-6512-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1608
Vancouver, British Columbia, September 29, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
|
BETWEEN: |
|
ROGHAYEH SADEGHI |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Roghayeh Sadeghi, applied for a temporary resident visa (“TRV”
) to visit her brother and his family in Canada. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“the Officer”
) refused her application on January 14, 2024. Ms. Sadeghi is challenging this refusal on judicial review.
[2] The Officer refused the application because they found the Applicant had not established under paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] that she would leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay because i) her assets and financial situation were insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel; and ii) the purpose of her visit was not consistent with a temporary stay.
[3] I find that the decision is unreasonable because relevant evidence on a key basis of the refusal was not addressed. While extensive reasons are not required, an officer’s decision must be transparent, intelligible and justified (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 15). There needs to be a “rational chain of analysis”
so that a person impacted by the decision can understand the basis for the determination (Vavilov at para 103; see also Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 77 at para 17; Samra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 157 at para 23; and Rodriguez Martinez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 293 at paras 13-14).
[4] The Officer found that Ms. Sadeghi had not demonstrated sufficient funds for her visit based on limited bank statements that did not show a “history of fund accumulation”
. Ms. Sadeghi also provided a letter of employment from her employer and confirmation of her salary. The Officer does not mention this evidence, but more significantly, the Officer fails to address Ms. Sadeghi’s brother’s statement where he explains that he would financially support Ms. Sadeghi’s stay in Canada. There is no mention of this financial support in the Officer’s reasons, though, in my view, it is critical in the evaluation of whether Ms. Sadeghi has sufficient funds for her visit.
[5] The Respondent argues that the Officer did not need to mention this evidence for two reasons. First, Ms. Sadeghi indicated in her application form that she had $10,000 for her stay in Canada and responded “no”
to the question “is someone else giving you money for your stay in Canada.”
I note first that the Officer did not raise this issue in their reasons. Further, Ms. Sadeghi’s brother offered full support for Ms. Sadeghi’s accommodation and costs in Canada. The question in the application form relates to whether someone else is providing Ms. Sadeghi with the $10,000 she says she has available for her stay. That her response is “no”
to that specific question does not foreclose that she has other support available to her. Indeed, as part of her application, she provided a letter from her brother setting out this support.
[6] Second, the Respondent argues that because the information provided in Ms. Sadeghi’s brother’s statement was minimal and not further supported by bank statements or a notice of assessment, the Officer need not have considered it, and therefore it would not have made a difference to the final outcome. Again, the Officer’s reasons do not at all address Ms. Sadeghi’s brother’s statement. The Court cannot read into the Officer’s reasons that the Officer chose not to assess Ms. Sadeghi’s brother’s statement of financial support because the Applicant did not provide other supporting material.
[7] The Officer also states in their reasons that “the purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application”
. The Officer does not give any further explanation for this ground of refusal. It may be that the Officer is finding that the lack of sufficient funds is not consistent with a temporary stay. If this is the case, I have already addressed this ground of refusal. If it is a separate ground of refusal, apart from the financial issue, the decision lacks transparency and justification because no explanation was given for this ground.
[8] The application for judicial review is granted. Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.
Email this Content