Wahidy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 460

Date: 20260408

Docket: IMM-1453-25

Citation: 2026 FC 460

Toronto, Ontario, April 8, 2026

PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

(delivered orally from the bench on April 8, 2026)

[1] In this application for judicial review, the Applicant challenges the refusal of his application for a temporary resident visa to visit his daughter and her family in Canada. The refusal was based solely on the Officer’s impression that the Applicant did not have a temporary intention due to the “widely documented human rights abuses” in Afghanistan, his country of citizenship.

[2] The Officer’s decision is unreasonable in two ways.

[3] First, there is no evidence in the record of the human rights situation in Afghanistan, and no evidence or explanation of how the human rights situation in Afghanistan would motivate the Applicant to remain outside of his country given his personal circumstances. As stated by the Supreme Court of Canada, where a decision maker’s rationale for an essential element of the decision is not addressed in the reasons and cannot be inferred from the record, “the decision will generally fail to meet the requisite standard of justification, transparency and intelligibility” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], at para 98).

[4] Second, even if evidence of the adverse human rights situation in Afghanistan was before the Officer, the Officer disregarded the Applicant’s personal evidence indicating that he would return to his country. This evidence included the fact that his wife of over 50 years would remain in Afghanistan, and the Applicant’s daughter’s undertaking to ensure his return given the Applicant’s desire to live out his senior years in his country. The Officer’s decision is therefore unreasonable for failing to account for relevant evidence (Vavilov, at para 126).

[5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is granted.

JUDGMENT in IMM-1453-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted, the decision refusing the Applicant’s temporary resident visa is set aside, and the matter is returned to a different officer for redetermination.

2. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs.

"Michael Battista"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: