Docket: IMM-15535-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1876
Ottawa, Ontario, November 22, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN: |
HADI NOMIRI |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Introduction
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision (the “Decision”
) by a visa officer (the “Officer”
) rejecting a temporary resident visa (visitor visa) due to a concern about the provenance of funds.
II. Background
[2] The Applicant, Dr. Hadi Nomiri, is a citizen of Iran. His family, including his spouse, child, and parents also live in Iran. He is a veterinarian, and oversees and supervises his own veterinary hospital in Iran. He also owns property in Iran that he states he receives rental income from.
[3] The Applicant booked a travel tour, flights, and accommodations in Canada from March 18, 2024 to March 28, 2024, aligning with the Persian New Year Holidays in Iran. He then applied for a visitor visa to come to Canada during that period of time.
III. The Decision
[4] On October 20, 2023, the Officer concluded that they were not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay as required by section 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. The Officer relied on the following two factors: the Applicant’s assets and financial situation were insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the Applicant and the purpose of the visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay.
[5] The Officer outlined several reasons for the refusal, including concerns about the insufficiency of the Applicant's assets and financial situation to justify the stated purpose of travel, inadequate bank account activity to support a temporary stay, lack of sufficient establishment to make the trip financially reasonable, and doubts about the Applicant's genuine intent to leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. The Officer also found that the Applicant’s travel history was insufficient to build a track record of international travel that would weigh positively.
IV. Issues
[6] The Applicant raises the following issues:
Is the Decision reasonable?
Was there a breach of procedural fairness?
V. Analysis
[7] The standard of review with respect to an officer’s findings on a visitor visa application is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 25). The standard of review with respect to the Applicant’s procedural rights is correctness or a standard with the same import (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35 and 54-55, citing Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79).
[8] However, the level of procedural fairness owed by the Officer is relaxed, considering the nature of the administrative process for visa applications (Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 465 at para 21).
[9] A visa officer’s reasons can be brief due to the volume of requests they receive. The reasons must be read in light of the record before the Officer (Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at para 23).
A. Reasonableness
[10] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s Decision was unreasonable because they erred in assessing the Applicant’s bank records and disregarded the Applicant’s family, financial, and professional ties to Iran. The Applicant asserts that had the Officer properly considered the documents and information, that the reasonable conclusion is that he was a genuine visitor and would leave Canada.
[11] Upon review of the record, I find the Officer was reasonably concerned by the lump-sum payments and fluctuating bank accounts. The absence of adequate documentation to confirm the availability of the Applicant’s funds is sufficient for the Officer to refuse the application (Abdisoufi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 164 at para 11). The record does not show that that the Applicant maintained “a consistently healthy account balance of approximately $39,000 CAD over a six-month period”
, as asserted by the Applicant. The bank accounts fluctuated from $4,720 CAD to $2.50 CAD then ballooned to $39,000 CAD.
[12] Additionally, while the Applicant asserts that the Officer “overlooked the fact that the applicant made substantial expenditures and preparations before the trip”
and “booked and prepaid for a travel tour”
, there are no invoices confirming that payments were actually made, and if so, in what amount. Thus, it was reasonable for the Officer to find it was not confirmed whether this money would actually be available to the Applicant for his travel.
[13] The Applicant also asserts that the Officer overlooked and/or disregarded many different pieces of evidence, from their travel details to their work in Iran. An officer is presumed to have considered all the evidence before him or her unless the contrary is shown (Rahman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 793 at para 17). However, this Court has held that it is “unreasonable to find an applicant insufficiently established in their home country without addressing contradictory evidence of family, economic, or other relevant ties to the home country”
(Khorasgani v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2023 FC 1581 at para 13).
[14] That is the case here: the Applicant stated that his spouse, daughter, and parents whom he takes care of, are all staying in Iran, he also has a veterinary business and three residential properties that require his supervision and attention. By failing to engage with this evidence, which strongly supports the Applicant returning to Iran, the Officer’s conclusion that they were not satisfied that the Applicant would leave at the end of the stay is not transparent nor justified. The Decision with respect to this factor is unreasonable.
B. Procedural fairness
[15] The Applicant argues that the Officer breached his procedural fairness rights by failing to request additional information, particularly concerning their financial establishment capability.
[16] This does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness. A visa officer has no duty to clarify a deficient application or inform the Applicant of their concerns. The onus rests on the Applicant to provide adequate and sufficient evidence to support his application (Anand v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 372 at para 37).
VI. Conclusion
[17] For the reasons described above, the Decision was unreasonable and the application is allowed.
Email this Content