Docket: IMM-5211-25
Citation: 2026 FC 305
Ottawa, Ontario, March 5, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tsimberis
|
BETWEEN: |
|
GURJANT SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Mr. Gurjant Singh, citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision dated March 6, 2025 [Decision] of a visa officer [Officer] of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refusing his application for a temporary resident visa [TRV], pursuant to paragraph 179(b) Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], on the basis that the Officer was not satisfied that Mr. Singh would leave Canada at the end of his stay. The Officer made this finding based on the following two factors: (1) Mr. Singh’s assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of his travel and (2) the purpose of Mr. Singh’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in his application.
[2] The only valid issue raised in this application for judicial review is whether the Officer’s Decision to refuse Mr. Singh’s TRV is reasonable. At the hearing, counsel for Mr. Singh conceded that his written arguments relating to alleged breaches of procedural fairness were untenable given his mistaken references, first from Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 [Baker] and second from Kamara v Canada, 2008 FC 785, to support erroneous propositions of law.
[3] For the reasons that follow, this Court dismisses the application for judicial review.
II. Background
[4] Mr. Singh’s TRV application was received by IRCC on February 25, 2025.
[5] Mr. Singh was seeking to visit his wife, who was in Canada on a one-year study permit, and their newborn son, born in Canada on January 5, 2025.
[6] The study permit of Mr. Singh’s wife expired on September 30, 2025.
III. Decision Under Review
[7] By letter dated March 6, 2025, the Officer refused Mr. Singh’s TRV application because he failed to satisfy the Officer that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized period of stay, as stipulated in paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR. The Officer based this finding on two factors: 1) Mr. Singh’s assets and financial situation were insufficient to support the stated purpose of his travel; and 2) the purpose of Mr. Singh’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details he provided in his TRV application.
[8] The Officer’s Decision is further explained in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which are part of the Decision as per Baker at para 44, and are reproduced below:
I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. 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). The proof of funds submitted provides insufficient evidence regarding the origin of the 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.
IV. Relevant Considerations and Provisions Related to TRVs
[9] The relevant considerations and provisions related to the judicial review of TRV decision were set out by my colleague Justice Strickland in Rahman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 793 at para 16:
[16] The IRPA requires that a foreign national, before entering Canada, apply for a visa (s 11(1)), establish that they hold such a visa and that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay (s 20(1)(b)). With respect to TRV’s, s 7(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRP Regulations”) states that a foreign national may not enter Canada to remain on a temporary basis without first obtaining a TRV. Section 179 of the IRP Regulations sets out the requirements that must be met before a visa officer will issue a TRV. Among these is the requirement that the visa officer be satisfied that the foreign national will leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for his or her stay. There is a legal presumption that a foreign national seeking to enter Canada is an immigrant, and it is up to him or her to rebut this presumption (Obeng at para 20). Therefore, in the present case, the onus was on the Applicant to prove to the Officer that she is not an immigrant and that she would leave Canada at the end of the requested period of stay (Chhetri at para 9).
V. Standard of Review
[10] The presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at paras 10, 25. To avoid intervention on judicial review, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99. For the reviewing court to intervene, the party challenging the decision must satisfy the court that “there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency”
and that the alleged flaws “must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision”
: Vavilov at para 100.
[11] The Court must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; a decision may be unreasonable, however, if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it”
: Vavilov at paras 125-126.
VI. Analysis
A. No Requirement to Consider Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds in TRV Context
[12] Mr. Singh argues that the Officer failed to consider humanitarian and compassionate grounds in making their Decision. Notably, Mr. Singh submits the Officer should have taken into consideration his wife’s medically vulnerable state as she was in postnatal recovery and should have also considered the newborn child’s welfare and family unity under paragraph 3(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. To support this argument, Mr. Singh relies on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61. However, Mr. Singh does not explain how this decision, rendered in the refugee context and related to the Minister’s exercise of humanitarian and compassionate discretion under subsection 25(1) of the IRPA, applies to his matter in the TRV context.
[13] The language of subsection 25(1) of the IRPA applies to a foreign national “who applies for permanent resident status and who is inadmissible”
. Mr. Singh clearly is not applying for permanent resident status but rather for a TRV, which is subject to different statutory provisions. The Officer’s task under paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR is a narrow one that does not include the consideration of humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
[14] As such, the Officer made no error in their Decision by not engaging in a humanitarian and compassionate grounds analysis relating to the postnatal state of Mr. Singh’s wife, their newborn child’s welfare, and their family unity, and by not referring to such an analysis in their Decision.
B. Reasonability and Sufficiency of Reasons Provided by the Officer in the TRV Context
[15] Mr. Singh submits the Decision is unreasonable because the reasons do not account for the full evidentiary record documenting his financial stability. Notably, Mr. Singh argues the Officer did not meaningfully engage with the documents filed in support of his application. Specifically, these documents included employment letters, a Chartered Accountant’s report detailing his financial standing, land valuation reports confirming his family’s ownership of immovable assets, as well as two sets of bank statements and income tax returns. Mr. Singh submits that the Officer failed to analyze these documents, rendering the Decision arbitrary in the absence of any justification to support the Officer’s rejection of financial documents.
[16] In the case before me, the Officer found that Mr. Singh’s “assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for themselves”
and that the “proof of funds submitted provides insufficient evidence regarding the origin of the funds.”
[17] It is open to the Officer to consider not only the funds available to a visa applicant but also the source, nature, and stability of those funds when assessing whether an applicant will depart Canada at the end of their authorized stay: Izokun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 875 [Izokun] at para 23; Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at para 29; Sayyar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 494 at para 12. Failure to provide satisfactory documentation showing the source of funds to an officer is a relevant consideration as to whether the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay: Izokun at para 25; Roodsari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 970 [Roodsari] at para 33; Bestar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 483 [Bestar] at para 20. An officer is justified in refusing a TRV application when an applicant fails to provide adequate supporting documentation to confirm the availability of funds: Mohammadalizadehsamani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 84 [Mohammadalizadehsamani] at paras 28-30, citing Salemi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1858 at para 33; Bhardwaj v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 736 at para 10.
[18] I find the Officer’s conclusion of insufficient evidence as to the origin of the funds is supported by the evidence in the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR]. The record also shows that Mr. Singh did not provide the requisite evidence to establish proof of financial support that is listed in the document filing checklist for TRV applicants. The Visa Office Instructions for New Delhi provide TRV applicants like Mr. Singh seeking to establish proof of financial support with a document filing checklist and indicates that a failure to submit all required documentation may result in a refusal or processing delays. This document filing checklist to establish proof of financial support references the filing of income tax returns for the past two years and copies of bank statements or bank book covering the past six (6) months.
[19] Mr. Singh provided statements from two bank accounts reflecting positive balances. Mr. Singh filed Union Bank of India statements from July 1, 2024, to August 8, 2024 (for a period of less than 6 months) with limited information regarding the source of the deposits. In the limited seven weeks of statements provided for this Union Bank of India account, the account doubles in size, with no clear explanation as to the provenance of the funds: CTR at 62, 186-192. As for the Finacle bank account statements from July 1, 2024 to February 20, 2025, while they cover a period greater than the required minimum six (6) month period, the statements again do not include information that would permit the Officer to determine the origin of the funds shown: CTR at 65-94.
[20] I agree with the Minister that it was reasonable for the Officer to be concerned regarding the source of the funds shown on the bank statements and that it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that these bank statements are insufficient evidence to establish the source of the funds.
[21] The Court finds that the Officer’s Decision is not unreasonable. The Officer reasonably found that Mr. Singh had not provided sufficient evidence regarding the source of funds set out in his banking information as he was required to do. The Officer clearly stated that this was a reason to refuse the TRV application. None of the evidence in the CTR allowed the Officer to trace the transactions shown on the bank accounts to a source.
[22] I must acknowledge the jurisprudence that visa officers are presumed to have considered the whole of the evidence, unless the contrary is shown, and visa officers are not required to mention every document submitted in their decisions: Akhtar v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 595 at paras 23-24; Hashem v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 41 at paras 28-29. Mr. Singh does not point to any other evidence on the record that explains the source of several substantial deposits shown in the bank account statements provided or any relationship between the funds and his income that the Officer would have missed. For example, while Mr. Singh did provide in his application a chartered accountant report that lists assets such as jewelry, household goods, and property values, these assets are not easily liquidated and are more difficult to consider as available funds for a short-term visit in Canada, especially when a person has indicated that it is planning to return to his home country after the visit. I also note that both the chartered accountant report and the valuation report regarding the land properties do not list Mr. Singh as an owner of the properties: CTR at 175-182.
[23] The Officer’s reasons, although brief, convey a rational chain of analysis, supported by the evidence and the law. Visa officers are not required to provide exhaustive reasons given the pressure that they face to produce a large volume of decisions and the nature of the interests affected by these decisions: Jassal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 701 at paras 17-21; Iriekpen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1276 at para 7; Khan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 52 at paras 13-17; Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 672 at paras 9-10; Nimely v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 282 at para 7; Solopova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 690 at paras 31-32. Given this high-volume context and the nature of the visa application and refusal, the reason given by the Officer as to the lacking source of funds evidence is sufficient.
[24] This Court has confirmed that an officer “may conduct a more detailed and fulsome analysis about the source, origin, nature, and stability of funds when assessing an applicant’s resources”
: Izokun at para 23. The Officer’s conclusion that the evidence submitted is insufficient regarding the origin of the funds in support of the TRV application is not only reasonable but is, in my view, sufficient and determinative on its own to refuse Mr. Singh’s TRV application: Davoodabadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 85 para 16; Mohammadalizadehsamani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 84 [Mohammadalizadehsamani] at paras 3, 24, 28-29 and 37. As mentioned above, providing insufficient documentation showing the source of funds to an officer is a relevant consideration as to whether the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay: Izokun at para 25; Roodsari at para 33; Bestar at para 20. I need not address Mr. Singh’s arguments as they relate to the reasonableness of the Officer’s conclusion that the purpose of Mr. Singh’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details he provided in his TRV application. The Officer provided two reasons for finding that the TRV should not be issued and could have simply relied on the first reason, which as the Court has found is justified: Mohammadalizadehsamani at para 38.
VII. Conclusion
[25] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review. The Court finds no fatal flaw or sufficiently serious shortcoming in the Decision to render it unreasonable. It is not the Court’s role to reweigh the evidence or to remake the Decision. The role of the Court is to determine whether the Officer’s Decision was reasonable.
Email this Content