Docket: IMM-4891-24
Citation: 2025 FC 395
Toronto, Ontario, March 4, 2025
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Pentney
BETWEEN: |
NAYEREH MOTAHARI |
Applicant |
and |
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario on February 27, 2025)
[1] The Applicant, Nayereh Motahari, is seeking judicial review of the decision refusing her application for a temporary resident visa (“TRV”
). She is a dual citizen of Iran and Dominica who wanted to come to Canada to visit her sister.
[2] The TRV application was first refused on November 8, 2023. The reasons for refusal were that the Applicant did not have significant family ties outside Canada and that the purpose of her visit was not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would depart Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
[3] The Applicant commenced an application for leave and judicial review which was later discontinued; the parties agreed to remit the decision for reconsideration. The Applicant was given an opportunity to submit additional materials on reconsideration, which she did on March 7, 2024.
[4] The Applicant’s second TRV application was refused on March 12, 2024. The key reasons for the Visa Officer’s (the “Officer”
) refusal are that:
The Applicant does not have significant family ties outside of Canada. She is in a common-law relationship, has no dependants and does not appear to be established in Iran.
The Applicant is a dual citizen of Dominican Republic (sic) and thus the Officer accorded “less weight to their ties to their country of birth.”
I note here that the Officer may have been misled about the Applicant’s dual citizenship, because her representative referred to her as a citizen of Iran and the Dominican Republic. The Applicant is, in fact, a citizen of the Republic of Dominica. Nothing turns on this point.
The Applicant’s banking transaction history shows large, unexplained lump-sum deposits and pre-existing low balances which the Officer found to indicate that the account was inflated for the purposes of the visa application.
[5] Based on these considerations, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would depart Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
[6] The only issue in this case is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable, applying the framework set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
[7] This Court has discussed the legal framework that governs the judicial review of denials of TRV applications in a large number of recent decisions, including: Kashefi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856; Bawa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1605; Malik v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 755; Quraishi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1145. The following summary captures the key elements of the relevant principles:
A reasonable decision must explain the result, in view of the law and the key facts.
Vavilov seeks to reinforce a “culture of justification,”
requiring the decision-maker to provide a logical explanation for the result and to be responsive to the parties’ submissions, but it also requires the context for decision-making to be taken into account.
Visa Officers face a deluge of applications, and their reasons do not need to be lengthy or detailed. While “boilerplate”
language is not inherently unreasonable, reasons must show an actual engagement with the specific situation of the applicant: Saad v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1302 at para 16. The reasons, when viewed in light of the record, must set out the key elements of the Officer’s line of analysis and be responsive to the core of the claimant’s submissions on the most relevant points.
The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Officer that they meet the requirements for a TRV, including that they will leave at the end of their authorized stay.
Visa Officers must consider the “push”
and “pull”
factors that could lead an Applicant to overstay their visa and stay in Canada, or that would encourage them to return to their home country.
The decision must be assessed in light of the context for decision-making, including the high volume of applications to be processed and the nature of the interests involved.
It is not open to the Minister’s counsel or the Court to fashion their own reasons to buttress or supplement the Officer’s decision: see Ajdadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 754 at para 6.
[8] Visa officers considering a TRV application exercise a wide discretion, based on a host of factors including the details provided in the actual application documents, their knowledge of relevant country conditions and/or travel or other patterns. Such decisions deserve deference, but they must still meet the standard of responsive justification in Vavilov.
[9] Finally, it is important to note that people request TRVs for all sorts of reasons, and this may be a relevant consideration in examining the reasonableness of the reasons for the refusal. For example, denying a TRV request to visit an immediate family member at the end of their life may require a more thorough explanation than a refusal where a person simply wanted to come to Canada to visit a tourist destination: see Vavilov at para 133.
[10] Applying the principles set out above, I find the decision in this case to be unreasonable.
[11] The Officer’s reasons must be understood in the context of the record, in particular the supporting documents provided by the Applicant. As noted earlier, the Officer’s decision rests on three main grounds: the Applicant’s weak family ties and establishment in Iran, her dual citizenship, and the insufficiency of the financial information.
[12] On the family ties and establishment issue, I acknowledge that the Officer reasonably found the Applicant’s evidence about her relationship with her parents to be lacking. However, I find the Officer failed to grapple with the following evidence put forward by the Applicant:
She is in a long-term common-law relationship with her partner, who is remaining in Iran. She provided detailed evidence showing they live together, and she stated they intend to get married and hope to have children. The Applicant has frozen her ova in Iran, and submitted proof of that with her application;
The Applicant has secure and well-paid employment in Iran, and owns several properties there.
[13] While none of these factors may be decisive in themselves, the Officer cannot reasonably fail to discuss them.
[14] The second ground of the Officer’s decision is that the Applicant has dual citizenship. It is entirely unclear how this factored into the assessment of the Applicant’s request, and the Officer did not mention the extensive travel history evidence provided by the Applicant. If the concern was that the Applicant had less reason to return to Iran because she was a citizen of Dominica, the Officer needed to explain how the evidence of her extensive travels (at least 17 trips from 2020 to 2023) – always followed by a return to Iran – was factored into the reasoning process.
[15] Finally, on the financial information, the Officer found that the Applicant’s banking history showed “large, unexplained lump-sum deposits and pre-existing low balances, which indicates that the bank account was inflated for the purposes of the visa application.”
I acknowledge that the Officer reasonably noted that the bank statements do not show the source of the funds, but rather simply a series of deposits and withdrawals.
[16] However, the Applicant submitted evidence that her common law partner had agreed to support her financially (together the couple have bank accounts valued at over $500,000 CAD). Moreover, the Applicant’s sister promised to provide for her food, accommodation and other expenses during her visit.
[17] The Applicant also provided evidence of her monthly salary, and her employment. In addition, she provided evidence showing that she had sold gold coins, for which she received large sums, and her bank statement shows a correspondingly large deposit on the same day as one of those sales. The Officer does not refer to this, but rather makes vague reference to large, lump-sum deposits into the Applicant’s account.
[18] The Officer was assessing the Applicant’s financial situation in relation to her application for a one-month visit to Canada, and the conclusion that her evidence raised doubts about her ability to pay for the trip – or gave rise to suspicion about the purpose of her trip, is not adequately explained in light of the evidence she filed.
[19] Based on my review of the evidence, and considering the submissions of the parties, I find that the decision is unreasonable. The application for judicial review is, therefore, granted.
[20] There is no question of general importance for certification.
Email this Content