Docket: IMM-8030-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1265
Ottawa, Ontario, July 16, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
|
BETWEEN: |
|
HODA SEIGHAL ZANAN MASHHADI |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Hoda Seighal Zanan Mashhadi, applied for a temporary resident visa (“TRV”
) to Canada to visit her family for a period of twenty days. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“the Officer”
) refused her application on May 1, 2024. Ms. Mashhadi is challenging this refusal on judicial review.
[2] The Officer refused the application because they found the Applicant had not established under paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] that she would leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay based on the following factors: (i) insufficient finances to support her visit and (ii) significant family ties in Canada. The determinative issue on judicial review is the Officer’s assessment of Ms. Mashhadi’s available financial resources for her twenty-day visit.
[3] I find that the decision is unreasonable because relevant evidence contradicting the Officer’s findings was not addressed. While extensive reasons are not required, an officer’s decision must be transparent, intelligible and justified (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 15. There needs to be a “rational chain of analysis”
so that a person impacted by the decision can understand the basis for the determination (Vavilov at para 103; see also Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 77 at para 17; Samra v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 157 at para 23; and Rodriguez Martinez v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 293 at paras 13-14).
[4] The Officer found that Ms. Mashhadi had not demonstrated sufficient funds for her twenty-day visit based on the limited bank statements and significant influxes in the account. Ms. Mashhadi and her husband also provided employment verification letters that confirm their salaries. The Officer does not mention the employment verification letters, but even more significantly, the Officer fails to address Ms. Mashhadi’s brother’s affidavit that explains he would financially fully support Ms. Mashhadi’s stay in Canada. There is no mention of this financial support in the Officer’s reasons, though it is critical in the evaluation of whether Ms. Mashhadi has sufficient finances for her visit. On this basis alone the decision should be sent back to be redetermined.
[5] The application for judicial review is granted. Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.
Email this Content