Docket: IMM-6059-25
Citation: 2026 FC 800
Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ARDALAN ASHRAFI
FATEMEH GHASEMI
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] The Applicants, Ardalan Ashrafi [Principal Applicant or PA] and his spouse, Fatemeh Ghasemi, are citizens of Iran. They seek judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, of the March 3, 2025 decisions of an immigration officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [the Officer] refusing their work permit applications.
[2] The Applicants argue that the Officer made erroneous findings of fact regarding certain “push/pull”
factors. The Respondent submits the Officer reasonably considered the Applicants’ evidence and that the Applicants are inviting the Court to reweigh and reassess the evidence that was placed before the Officer, which is not the role of a reviewing court.
[3] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is granted.
II. Background
[4] On December 3, 2024, the PA applied for a work permit under the C11 category as an entrepreneur, seeking to establish and operate a hair and beauty salon in Canmore, Alberta [Salon]. The PA’s spouse applied for a spousal open work permit under the C41 category on the same date. The applications were both exempted from the requirement for a Labour Market Impact Assessment.
[5] Applicants seeking entry to Canada under the C11 work permit category, as an entrepreneur or self-employed person, must demonstrate that: (1) the work is on a temporary or seasonal basis and that they have plans to leave Canada in a specified period of time, and (2) the work will generate significant economic, social or cultural benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents pursuant to paragraph 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR].
III. Decisions Under Review
[6] In refusing the PA’s work permit application, the Officer concluded the PA had not established he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized period of stay, finding: (1) the PA has significant family ties in Canada; (2) he does not have significant family ties outside Canada; and (3) the purpose of his visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application.
[7] The relevant portions of the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form part of the decision, state:
I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant has significant family ties in Canada. 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. Applicant intends to establish a beauty saloon [sic]. I have noted several competator saloons [sic] in the area. I am not satisfied that the PA sufficiently demonstrates R205(a). I have reviewed the business plan and it does not mention how the company will create significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or PRs, as required, per the PDIs. The applicant failed to satisfy me that the work is on [a] temporary basis and that they have plans to leave Canada in a specified period of time. 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.
[8] The Officer, similarly, was not satisfied the PA’s spouse would leave Canada at the end of her stay, finding that (1) she does not have significant family ties outside Canada and (2) the purpose of her visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details she provided in her application. The GCMS notes reflect those findings.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[9] The application raises a single issue – Are the Officer’s decisions reasonable?
[10] 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
[11] The Applicants submit the Officer erred in:
-
Considering the purpose of their visit and determining that they would not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. They submit their applications properly identified the temporary nature of the purpose of their visit – their primary interest being to set up the Salon before returning to Iran. Although they declared a dual intent, they expressly acknowledged that their interest in applying for permanent residence depended on the success of the Salon. Relying on Serimbetov v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 1130 at paras 29–31, they submit it was unreasonable and illogical for the Officer to determine they were unlikely to leave Canada.
-
Failing to reasonably explain the concern regarding the PA’s significant family ties to Canada. This in particular because the evidence disclosed the PA had no family ties inside Canada and they had instead placed contrary evidence before the Officer showing significant family ties to Iran (Pal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1004 at paras 15–18; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1645 at paras 19–22).
-
Concluding the PA had failed to sufficiently demonstrate how the Salon will create significant social, cultural or economic benefits under paragraph 205(a) of the IRPR, without grappling with the contents of the business plan and counsel submissions that formed part of the applications that specifically addressed the significant benefits and opportunities for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, taking into account Canmore’s regional market, the Salon would generate.
[12] The Respondent argues that the Applicants’ submissions merely reflect disagreement with the Officer’s reasons and improperly invite the Court to reweigh and reassess the evidence. It is submitted that the Applicants’ business plan is speculative and their work permit applications do not meet the technical, prima facie requirements of paragraph 205(a) of the IRPR. As such, the Officer’s decisions are reasonable.
[13] It may well be that the Officer was of the view that the Applicants’ business plan was speculative and lacking in detail, as the Respondent argues. However, the reasons do not demonstrate that the Officer held this view. Nor does the Officer meaningfully grapple with the contents of the business plan. Instead, the GCMS notes state that the Officer reviewed the business plan and found “it does not mention how the [Salon] will create significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or PRs, as required, per the PDIs.”
[14] Contrary to the Officer’s finding, the business plan identifies an underserved segment of the market and sets out how the Applicants intended to distinguish the Salon within the existing marketplace. The business plan also identifies a series of economic, social, and cultural benefits the Salon would provide within the community and in many cases describes how those benefits would be realized. The Officer’s generalized conclusion that the business plan was deficient simply does not accord with the evidence and, in the absence of some explanation justifying the conclusion reached, is therefore unreasonable.
[15] The Officer’s family ties conclusions and assessment of “push/pull”
factors are similarly unjustified. Counsel for the Respondent explained in submissions that because the Applicants’ most significant family ties are to each other and there was an absence of evidence establishing an interdependence between the Applicants and their parents in Iran, the Officer’s conclusions are reasonable. However, this justification is not advanced by the Officer, nor is it evident from the record. Counsel’s speculative explanations cannot be relied upon to justify a decision-maker’s finding or outcome on judicial review.
VI. Conclusion
[16] The absence of any rational chain of analysis to support the conclusions reached renders the Officer’s decisions unreasonable. The application for judicial review is therefore granted.
[17] Neither Party has proposed a serious question of general importance for certification, and I agree that none arise.
Email this Content