Docket: IMM-12-25
Citation: 2026 FC 419
Vancouver, British Columbia, March 31, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson
|
BETWEEN: |
|
MRS GAGANPREET KAUR SHERGILL GURFURMAN KAUR SHERGILL |
|
Applicants |
|
and |
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Introduction
[1] The Applicants, Gaganpreet Kaur Shergill [Principal Applicant or PA] and Gurfurmaan Kaur Shergill, mother and daughter, are citizens of India. A visa officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [Officer] refused their applications for a temporary resident visa [TRV] to allow them to visit family members in Canada in a decision dated October 5, 2024.
[2] The Officer refused both applications for identical reasons. The Officer found that the Applicants’ financial situation, as disclosed in the applications, was insufficient to support the purpose of travel and that the Applicants had failed to disclose significant family ties outside Canada. This being so, the Officer concluded the purpose of the Applicants’ visit not to be consistent with a temporary stay.
[3] The Officer’s Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form part of the decision, state the following:
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). Large sums of funds are recently deposited into applicants [sic] account. More evidence is required to show the source of funds provided by the applicant on their bank statement. The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada. The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. The purpose of visit does not appear reasonable given the applicant’s socio-economic situation and therefore I am not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of the period of authorized stay. 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.
[4] The Applicants seek judicial review of the Officer’s decision under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, arguing the Officer disregarded or ignored evidence relating to the PA’s employment, financial circumstances and property ownership, and the Applicants’ family ties to India, breaching procedural fairness and rendering an unreasonable decision. The Respondent submits there was no breach of procedural fairness and the Officer’s decision is reasonable; the Applicants having failed to provide sufficient evidence.
II. Preliminary Matters
A. Application determined based on written submissions only
[5] Further to the March 12, 2026 Order of this Court (per Justice Phuong Ngo) [Order], I have determined this matter on the basis of Parties’ written submissions only. The Order did provide the Applicants with the opportunity to file further reply submissions before March 19, 2026, however none were filed. I have therefore considered the following written submissions:
-
The Applicants’ Memorandum of Argument filed on March 8, 2025;
-
The Applicants’ Reply Memorandum filed on April 18, 2025;
-
The Respondent’s further Memorandum of Argument filed February 27, 2025.
B. Admissibility of evidence
[6] The Respondent submits Exhibit “B”
of the Affidavit of Gaganpreet Kaur Shergill attested to on March 7, 2025 [Shergill Affidavit] is improperly before the Court.
[7] Exhibit “B”
of the Shergill Affidavit is a request for reconsideration with supporting documents, none of which were before the Officer in rendering the decision under review. The Respondent submits the consideration of these documents is contrary to the general rule that judicial review is to be limited to the record that was before the decision-maker (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 19 [Access Copyright]).
[8] The Applicants do not take issue with the general rule but submit the reconsideration request, for which no final decision has been communicated, should form part of the record. The Applicants argue the evidence provided does form part of the original TRV application and the evidence, having been submitted with the reconsideration request, is available to the Officer. Therefore, it is argued, the evidence falls within the scope of the general rule. Alternatively, the Applicants argue the documents may be admitted as a recognized exception to the general rule (Access Copyright at para 20) for two reasons. First, Exhibit “B”
provides background and context demonstrating the Applicants’ efforts to rectify or clarify perceived gaps in the initial application, and second, the Exhibit contents demonstrate that the Respondent has treated the Applicants unfairly by failing to respond to their request for a reconsideration.
[9] I am sympathetic to the Applicants’ circumstances in light of the Respondent’s alleged failure to consider and determine the reconsideration request in a timely manner, an allegation the Respondent has not taken issue with. However, the remedy for the Respondent’s alleged inaction is not the admission on the judicial review of evidence submitted to support a separate determination, in this case reconsideration of the initial TRV refusal.
[10] A request for reconsideration does not supplement the record upon which the original determination was made. Although the request for reconsideration is, of necessity, linked to the initial TRV applications, a separate and distinct determination must be made. In reaching this conclusion, it is important to note that the Applicants are not without recourse to this Court where the Respondent has not acted on, or grappled with the evidence submitted in support of, a request for reconsideration.
[11] Nor does the evidence at Exhibit “B”
satisfy any of the recognized exceptions to the general rule. The evidence will not assist in understanding relevant issues, but instead seeks to bolster the record that was before the Officer – Exhibit “B”
contains documentary evidence directly relevant to the merits of the decision under review (Access Copyright at para 20(a)). Nor does the Exhibit disclose procedural defects before the Officer that are not otherwise disclosed in the record (Access Copyright at para 20(b)).
[12] I have therefore not considered the contents of Exhibit “B”
of the Shergill Affidavit nor any other evidence that was not before the Officer.
III. Analysis
[13] The Applicants submit that the Officer breached their duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide a reasonable justification for refusing the TRV applications despite strong evidence of financial stability and social ties.
[14] The Applicants’ argument does not raise an issue of fairness but instead engages a consideration of the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision. In reviewing a decision on the presumptive standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 10 [Vavilov]), the reviewing court considers whether the 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; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8). The party challenging a decision has the burden of demonstrating to a reviewing court “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency”
(Vavilov at para 100).
[15] I am persuaded that the decision fails to exhibit the requisite degree of intelligibility and transparency given the evidentiary record that was before the Officer.
[16] In concluding the purpose of the Applicants’ visit was not consistent with a temporary stay and not being satisfied the Applicants would depart Canada, the Officer relies on two findings.
[17] First, the Officer found the Applicants’ financial assets to be insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel, and appears to rely on the absence of evidence disclosing the source of lump sum deposits in bank records as the basis for this conclusion. I find no fault with the Officer’s treatment of the banking evidence in isolation; however, the Officer fails to engage with other financial information in the record which included tax returns for the PA and the business in which the evidence discloses she held a 50% interest. In addition, the Officer fails to engage with the evidence disclosing the value of other assets. The Respondent submits that, in the absence of additional evidence disclosing the Applicants were prepared to liquidate these assets, it was not unreasonable for the Officer to not address the evidence. While this may well be a reasonable justification for finding the contradictory evidence did not assist the Applicants, it was for the Officer, not the Respondent in submissions on judicial review, to provide that justification.
[18] Second, the Officer finds the Applicants have not demonstrated significant family ties outside Canada but provides no justification for this conclusion. Again, this conclusion might have been reasonably available to the Officer, but where the evidence discloses, as is the case here, that an applicant’s family ties to their home country include their spouse or parents, ties that objectively appear significant, an officer not engaging with and addressing this evidence undermines the reasonableness of the decision.
[19] In concluding the Officer’s decision is unreasonable, I am mindful that visa officers are required to deal with a high volume of applications, benefit from the presumption that all of the evidence has been reviewed and considered, and that extensive reasons are not required (Quraishi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1145 at paras 14-15; Rahman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 793 para 17). However, the failure to address, even briefly, contrary evidence undermines the attributes of a reasonable decision – intelligibility, transparency and justification – and opens the door to a reviewing court concluding the decision is unreasonable.
IV. Conclusion
[20] The application for judicial review is granted.
[21] No question of general importance for certification has been proposed, and I agree that none arise.
Email this Content