Docket: IMM-9714-24
Citation: 2025 FC 766
Toronto, Ontario, April 29, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
|
BETWEEN: |
|
JOB MUMO KILONZO |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(rendered orally from the bench on April 28, 2025)
[1] The Applicant applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit his Canadian half-sister. That application was refused based on the Officer’s concerns regarding the existence of sufficient funds to support his visit, the vague and poorly documented purpose of his visit, his lack of family ties outside of Canada, and his strong socio-economic ties to Kenya.
[2] The application is granted because the Officer failed to account for evidence concerning the first two bases for refusal. The decision is therefore unjustified in light of the evidence (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 126).
[3] Regarding the existence of sufficient funds to support the visit, the Officer stated that the Applicant’s inviter did not appear to have sufficient funds for the trip. This ignores evidence from the Applicant’s half-sister and host establishing savings accounts consistently showing balances of over $26,000. These funds were specifically mentioned in the cover letter for the application but not mentioned in the decision.
[4] Counsel for the Respondent points out that there was no proof of provenance of some of these funds, but that was not the basis for the refusal. There is a reference to the lack of explanation for “other financial documents” but it is unclear to which documents this comment relates. Perfection is not a requirement of reasons, but transparency is required.
[5] Second, there was detailed evidence before the Officer regarding the purpose of the Applicant’s visit. The Applicant’s half-sister and host described in detail why she needed the support of her brother, and why it was difficult to travel to him for that support. This evidence was also emphasized by counsel in a cover letter submitted with the application. Contrary to the Officer’s finding that their relationship had not been established, birth certificates demonstrating their shared parentage were provided.
[6] For these reasons, the decision is unreasonable for its disregard of the supporting evidence in the application. The application for judicial review is granted.
Email this Content