Docket: IMM-4471-24
Citation: 2025 FC 513
Ottawa, Ontario, March 19, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer
BETWEEN: |
ALIREZA OKHRAVI |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant Alireza Okhravi is a citizen of Iran. He applied for a visitor visa (temporary resident visa) to visit his only sibling, his sister, whom he had not seen for about 10 years. She is a family doctor with a practice in Aurora, Ontario where she lives with her family. She is a Canadian citizen.
[2] Mr. Okhravi is a PhD student and owner of the family company where he works as the CEO. He is married and has a 6-month-old daughter. None of his family members living in Iran would be accompanying him on his trip to Canada.
[3] Not convinced that Mr. Okhravi’s purpose for visiting Canada was consistent with a temporary stay, the visa officer refused the visitor visa. In particular, the officer found Mr. Okhravi’s assets and financial situation insufficient to support his stated purpose of travel.
[4] Mr. Okhravi seeks judicial review of the refusal, arguing the decision is unreasonable and procedurally unfair. The Respondent disagrees, pointing to the onus on the Applicant to present a persuasive application that rebuts the presumption a non-citizen seeking to enter Canada does so as an immigrant. Further, according to the Respondent, the visa officer did not question the accuracy of the Applicant’s documents but rather their sufficiency.
[5] Having considered the parties’ written material and heard their oral submissions, I find that the decision is unreasonable. For the more detailed reasons below, I thus grant the judicial review application on this basis.
II. Analysis
A. The refusal of the visitor visa is unreasonable
[6] Although the brevity of a visa officer’s reasons, in itself, is not necessarily a reviewable error, the reasons here do not account, in my view, for significant evidence that contradicts the officer’s findings. In my view, the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which contain reasons for the visa refusal, raise justification, intelligibility and transparency concerns, warranting the Court’s intervention, on at least two bases: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 99.
[7] First, the GCMS notes question Mr. Okhravi’s banking transaction history, which shows large, unexplained lump-sum deposits with limited evidence about the source of the funds, leading the officer to express dissatisfaction about whether Mr. Okhravi has sufficient funds for the purpose of his visit. I find, however, these notes do not address the banking transaction history also supplied by Mr. Okhravi’s sister and brother-in-law who together operate a medical clinic and pharmacy in Aurora. Their banking information was enclosed with the sister’s invitation letter which states, “I am fully prepared and willing to provide my beloved brother with any necessary support. He will be accommodated at my residence … throughout his stay, and I will ensure his access to travel insurance and essential provisions upon his arrival.”
[8] Given the sister’s invitation letter and accompanying banking information, I am unable to discern from the reasons in the GCMS notes how the officer concluded that Mr. Okhravi does not have sufficient funds for his stated 3-week stay. Noting that an officer must explain how the evidence before them, and not just a selective part of the evidence, does not meet the eligibility requirement, I find that the reasons here fall short and do not permit the Court to connect the dots: Etwaroo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1160 at para 23; Vavilov, above at para 97 (citing Komolafe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 431 at para 11).
[9] The GCMS notes also question the purpose of Mr. Okhravi’s visit to Canada, concluding that it “is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application.”
In my view, the latter statement is directly contradicted by Mr. Okhravi’s letter describing his purpose of travel which states that he will be staying with his sister and her husband for 21 days.
[10] Second, assuming the officer accepted Mr. Okhravi’s statement about the length of his stay, the officer should have explained why such a short stay is not temporary. A lack of explanation in this case renders the decision, in my view, unintelligible.
[11] I add that if the officer did not accept the statement, however, the officer should have explained this in clear and unmistakable terms, and provided Mr. Okhravi with an opportunity to dispel the officer’s concerns. To do otherwise, also potentially gives rise to a veiled credibility issue, absent an explanation justifying the officer’s conclusion that Mr. Okhravi’s purpose for his visit is not consistent with a temporary stay.
[12] In sum, I am satisfied that Mr. Okhravi has met his burden of showing that the visa officer’s decision is unreasonable: Vavilov, above at para 100.
III. Conclusion
[13] For the above reasons, I grant this judicial review application. The refusal of Mr. Okhravi’s application for a visitor visa is set aside, with the matter remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
[14] Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for certification. I find that none arises in the circumstances.
Email this Content