Docket: IMM-18528-24
Citation: 2026 FC 456
Vancouver, British Columbia, April 8, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson
|
BETWEEN: |
|
XU JI |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Xu Ji, is a citizen of China. He seeks judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], of the September 18, 2024 decision of a visa officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [Officer] refusing his application for the restoration of his temporary resident status and issuance of a visitor record.
[2] The Applicant argues that the Officer did not provide sufficiently detailed and intelligible reasons in support of the refusal decision and erred in failing to consider evidence that was contrary to their findings. The Respondent submits the Officer’s decision was reasonable, the Applicant having failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating ties to his home country or his purpose of visit.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
II. Background
[4] The Applicant first entered Canada in August 2007 and attended the University of British Columbia from 2010 to 2016 where he obtained a Bachelor of Science degree. From 2022 to 2023, he attended the Academy of Learning Career College in Richmond, British Columbia as a co-op student.
[5] The Applicant returned to China in February 2019 and then re-entered Canada that same month. On December 1, 2023, the Applicant applied to extend his visitor status in Canada, which was refused on May 16, 2024, because he had failed to disclose that he had been charged with criminal offences under the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. On August 8, 2024, the Applicant applied to restore his visitor status. He submitted he was seeking to remain in Canada for a period of six months to travel and complete treatment for a skin condition.
III. Decision Under Review
[6] By way of letter dated September 18, 2024, the Officer informed the Applicant they were not satisfied he met the requirements of the IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. The Officer noted that persons seeking to extend their temporary resident status in Canada must demonstrate that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay, that they will not contravene the conditions of entry, and that they do not belong in a category of persons inadmissible to Canada under the IRPA.
[7] The relevant portion of the Global Case Management System notes, which form part of the Officer’s decision, state:
[…] Client has failed to comply with the conditions imposed under R185(a) to leave Canada by 2024/05/16. As per A47(a) temporary resident status is lost. Client has applied for restoration consideration under R182.
Client is requesting a 4th VR ext until 2025/01/30. Client states “Tourism” is the purpose for this VR extension as it was for the previous VR extension(s). I am satisfied client has had sufficient time for the purpose of visit. Client hasn’t demonstrated family, work or education commitments to home country. I am not satisfied the client continues to meet the Act and Regulations as a genuine temporary resident who will leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay. This application is refused as per R179.
Application for restoration and visitor record refused. Advised client to leave Canada.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[8] The only issue that arises in this matter is whether the Officer committed an error warranting the Court’s intervention in dismissing the Applicant’s restoration of temporary resident status application. There is no dispute between the Parties that the Officer’s decision is reviewable on the presumptive standard of reasonableness (Sharma v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 786 at para 10).
[9] 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”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]; 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).
V. Analysis
A. Preliminary matter: Documents in the Applicant’s Record not included in the CTR
[10] The Applicant’s Record filed on November 25, 2024, includes the Applicant’s December 1, 2023 extension of status application and the May 16, 2024 decision letter refusing his extension of status [Additional Documents]; neither document is included in the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR].
[11] As a general rule, the evidence on judicial review is limited to the evidence that was before the decision-maker. In this case, the Respondent confirmed at the outset of the oral hearing that it was not objecting to the inclusion of the Additional Documents. I am also satisfied the Additional Documents fall within one of the recognized exceptions for the admission of new evidence on judicial review – specifically, the documents provide a general background that assists the Court in understanding the relevant issues on judicial review (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19–20). The Additional Documents may therefore be considered.
B. The Officer’s decision is reasonable
[12] The Applicant argues the Officer erred by failing to consider or assess: (1) the grounds for the May 16, 2024 refusal of his extension of status – that he had provided inaccurate information regarding his past criminal offences; (2) his explanation in response to the negative extension of status decision; (3) his purpose of visit, which included the need for further medical treatment; (4) the medical documentation submitted in support of his restoration of status application; and (5) his positive immigration history demonstrating compliance with previous temporary authorizations. The Applicant submits these factors were relevant and central to his restoration of status application and the failure to address them warrants intervention. I disagree.
[13] A visa officer benefits from the presumption that all of the evidence has been reviewed and considered, unless the contrary is shown (Rahman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 793 para 17). Here, as in Badhan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 704, “I cannot conclude that the evidence to which [the Applicant] refers is sufficiently significant to the determination the Officer was to make, or so inconsistent with that determination, to find that this evidence was ignored”
(at para 20; see also Boughus v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 210 at paras 56–57; Ozdemir v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCA 331 at paras 9–10).
[14] In this case, the Officer refused the restoration of status application on the basis that the Applicant had not established that he would “leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay.”
The Applicant’s submissions to the effect that the Officer failed to justify this outcome are without merit. First, in finding that they were “…satisfied client has had sufficient time for the purpose of visit [tourism],”
the Officer notes this is the Applicant’s “4th VR ext”
for the purpose of tourism, thereby explaining the basis for the Officer’s “sufficient time”
determination. Neither disagreement with the Officer’s reasonable interpretation of the evidence, nor the availability of other reasonable outcomes render the conclusion unreasonable.
[15] Similarly, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant had failed to demonstrate “family, work or education commitments to home country”
is consistent with the evidence. The Applicant made no submissions and did not advance any evidence in respect of ties to China. The reference to parental financial support to an adult child does not establish a tie to a home country in the absence of evidence that the parents are located in that country. A reviewing court is required to consider reasons with “sensitivity to the institutional setting and in light of the record”
(Vavilov at para 96) and doing so demonstrates the Officer’s finding in this regard was justified, intelligible, and transparent.
[16] Lastly, the Officer’s failure to consider that the purpose of visit was twofold is similarly unpersuasive. While it may have been preferable for the Officer to have acknowledged this second purpose, the absence of evidence establishing ties to China was determinative and justifies the decision regardless of the purpose of visit. I also note that the evidence on the record suggests the medical treatment was complete and cosmetic in nature.
[17] Nor was the Officer’s failure to address the Applicant’s history of visa compliance sufficient to render the decision unreasonable (Badhan at para 21, citing Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 894 at para 24).
VI. Conclusion
[18] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[19] Neither Party has proposed a question of general importance for certification, and I agree that none arise.
Email this Content