Folks making use of to go to, examine, or work in Canada have to point out that they intend to be bona fide non permanent residents that can go away the nation as soon as their visa / examine allow / work allow has expired. That is pursuant to s. 179(b) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Safety Rules, which states that:
179. An officer shall subject a brief resident visa to a overseas nationwide if, following an examination, it’s established that the overseas nationwide
(b) will go away Canada by the top of the interval licensed for his or her keep underneath Division 2;
The next are examples of how IRPR s. 179 could also be utilized to particular person purposes. They’re situations that IRCC supplies visa officers for the needs of coaching.
Case Research
As famous within the above coaching supplies, in figuring out whether or not an applicant has met the s. 179 requirement, a visa officer should take into account quite a few elements, together with monetary and private ties to the applicant’s nation of origin, previous immigration makes an attempt, overstaying in different nations, and any prison previous. Certainly, anybody who has ever seen a brief resident visa refusal might be acquainted with the next “check-list.”
CASE LAW
Your Historical past of Compliance
Whereas a historical past of non-compliance with immigration regulation is clearly a adverse issue, an officer’s lack of consideration of a postive journey historical past can render a choice unreasonable. In Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 894, Chief Justice Paul Crampton famous in obiter that an applicant’s historical past of compliance with one other immigration system was opposite to an officer’s discovering that the applicant wouldn’t go away Canada on the finish of the licensed keep. He wrote:
Furthermore, find that Mr. Singh was unlikely to return to India on the finish of his two 12 months keep in Canada, the officer failed to contemplate the importance of the truth that there was nothing to counsel that he had ever did not adjust to Singapore’s immigration legal guidelines, since he moved to that nation in 2009 (Momi, above, at paras 20 and 25). I don’t imply to counsel {that a} failure to contemplate this issue alone ought to present grounds for locating a choice to be unreasonable. Nevertheless, on the actual details of this case, this omission was one other shortcoming which, taken along with others, collectively, rendered the Determination unreasonable.
In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 840, Madam Justice McVeigh famous that:
The Applicant labored for six years in Singapore earlier than accepting a proposal to work in Vancouver. Nothing on the file means that he did not adjust to Singapore’s immigration legal guidelines. Whereas the officer’s failure to contemplate this issue just isn’t alone enough to warrant a discovering that the choice is unreasonable, it helps the above conclusion that the officer’s determination was made with out enough regard to the proof.
Your Journey Historical past
The Federal Court docket has persistently held that an applicant’s lack of journey historical past on a piece allow software ought to be handled as a impartial issue by way of the applicant’s probability of returning to his or her nation of citizenship: Ekpenyong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1245 at para 31, citing Ogunfowora v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 471 at para 42; Huang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 135 at para 13; Adom v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 26 at para 15. The Court docket has discovered it to be an error for a visa officer to make use of an applicant’s lack of earlier journey historical past as a adverse consider figuring out whether or not the applicant is not going to go away Canada after her employment: Ekpenyong at para 32.
Because the Federal Court docket famous in Momi v. Canada, 2013 FC 162:
Whereas the applicant’s compliance with Australian immigration guidelines just isn’t proof straight associated to the matter of complying with intervals of authorization in Canada, it does point out in my estimation that the applicant has revered immigration coverage previously, and there’s no additional proof on the contrary.
As effectively, whereas earlier journey historical past could also be a great indicator as to the probability of compliance to immigration legal guidelines, an absence of journey is at finest a impartial indicator, because the Federal Court docket present in Momi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2013 FC 162. and as was affirmed in Adom v. Canada (Citizenship & Immigration), 2019 FC 26.
Household Ties
In Thavaratnam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 967, the Federal Court docket acknowledged that merely itemizing the place members of the family reside after which stating that household ties are weak with out additional explanatation is unreasonable.
The Officer concludes that the Applicant’s ties to his nation of residence seem weak. Nevertheless, he doesn’t handle the proof that the Applicant’s spouse and employment are in Sri Lanka, and that his spouse owns property there. The Respondent notes that the Applicant additionally has ties to Canada by his dad and mom and sister’s household. It argues that the Officer was entitled to position extra weight on that proof. Nevertheless, I don’t take into account {that a} conclusion that the ties to Sri Lanka are “weak” by itself is cheap within the face of this conflicting proof. Some additional rationalization is required.
The Court docket reached an identical dedication in Zoie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1297:
As nearly all of the principal Applicant’s members of the family (and people of his partner) nonetheless reside in Iran, it was unreasonable for the Officer to easily discuss with household pull elements from Canada as a adverse issue, with out demonstrating consideration of the complete context that features familial pull elements from Iran: Azam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 115 at paras 55-56. If the Officer was of the view that there was inadequate proof on the ties to Iran, this could have been talked about within the Officer’s causes.
As effectively, counsel’s hypothesis of a believable rationalization can not treatment the inadequacy of the explanations for determination.
Size of Proposed Keep
From Momi v. Canada, 2013 FC 162:
having a “everlasting job” in Canada doesn’t enable for an inference that the applicant will break the regulation and stay on this nation previous the expiry of the work allow. There is no such thing as a proof on the file that the applicant would have ties in Canada such that he can be tempted to remain for that purpose alone. We must always guard towards connecting non permanent residence and changing into a everlasting resident (part 22 of the Act).
Your Immigration Standing
From Momi v. Canada, 2013 FC 162:
The truth that the applicant seeks to acquire the suitable visa from Canada as a result of his immigration scenario in Australia will turn out to be precarious would for my part militate in favour of contemplating the applicant as regulation abiding. As this Court docket has held previously, earlier immigration encounters are good indicators of an applicant’s probability of future compliance (see Calaunan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1494 at para 28 and Murai v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 186).
I discover it obscure how the truth that the applicant seems to have stayed in Australia since 2009 is enough to conclude that if he have been awarded a brief work allow, he wouldn’t return to India at its expiration. At finest, not wishing to return to India following a stint in Australia by looking for to acquire a brief work visa in Canada ought to be thought-about as impartial as as to whether or not the applicant “will go away Canada by the top of the interval licensed for his or her keep
I’m struck by the next passage taken from the choice of Justice Mainville, then of this Court docket, inGu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 522:
[21] Second, the opposite truth which the officer attracts upon to conclude that the applicant is not going to go away Canada on the finish of the examine interval is her continued presence in Canada since March 2002 with both work or examine permits. That is unreasonable. A overseas nationwide who has remained in Canada underneath validly issued work or examine permits shouldn’t be penalized for having adopted the immigration laws of this nation. The easy truth the applicant has legally remained in Canada can not fairly assist a conclusion that she would select to go “underground” or attempt to keep in Canada with out authorization as soon as her examine allow expires.
Equally, in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1754, Justice Gleeson dominated that it’s unreasonable for a visa officer to refuse somebody on the premise that “primarily based on the applicant’s immigraiton standing outdoors their nation of nationality or recurring residence, I’m not happy that they may go away Canada on the finish of their keep as a brief resident.”
Your Household Ties in Canada and in Your Nation of Residence
A number of Federal Court docket of Canada choices are skeptical of the notion that somebody having household ties in Canada is ncessarily a adverse issue. In Tharsini v. Canada, 2012 FC 1518 the Federal Court docket acknowledged:
The officer concluded the applicant had solely weak household ties to Sri Lanka. As there isn’t any elaboration on this discovering, one can solely assume the officer concluded the ties are weak because of solely a single member of the family being in that nation. Nevertheless, to evaluate household ties solely primarily based on the amount of members of the family is to disregard the related issue of the power of the child-parent bond (see Guo v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1353 at paragraph 15, [2001] FCJ No 1851). The officer might have had authentic causes for doubting the power of that bond on this case. The file is silent, making it very tough for this Court docket to see this discovering as affordable.
Whereas the household tie was just one a part of the proof thought-about by the officer on the difficulty of intention to go away Canada, it clearly was central to that dedication and I can not discern how the officer would have determined absent that discovering.
See additionally Shakeri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration).
As effectively, from Raymundo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration):
The second subject issues the Officer’s failure to contemplate the Applicant’s household ties within the Philippines in reaching the Determination. That is notably egregious because the Officer claimed to be unhappy that the Applicant demonstrated sturdy socio-economic ties to that nation whereas there was proof on file that the Applicant’s spouse and younger youngster would stay within the Philippines in the course of the Applicant’s research in Canada. In failing to have interaction with these details in any approach, notably in failing to evaluate whether or not the Applicant would return to his spouse and son within the Philippines, the Officer missed some essential details in making his determination.
In Farhat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1323, Madam Justice Go cautioned visa officers towards making imprecise statements about socio-economic standing, writing:
the Court docket usually cautions towards the usage of statements about ““socio-economic scenario”” as causes for refusal. In a latest determination, Kashefi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856 [Kashefi], the Court docket described an identical assertion in that case as ““opaque,”” because it was not doable to ““glean from the file any additional rationalization about which points of the Candidates’ social or financial scenario lead the Officer to conclude that they won’t go away Canada on the finish of their licensed keep:”” Kashefi at para 12.
An identical determination was reached in Rodriguez Martinez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the place Justice McHaffie dominated:
Within the current case, the one facet of the officer’s notes related to their conclusion that the Candidates’ lack “sturdy socio financial ties” with Cuba was the observe “household life financial savings of 3k, household earnings of 300$ month-to-month.” This observe comprises no evaluation of those elements or why they assist a conclusion that the Candidates wouldn’t go away Canada: Patel at paras 21–22; Asong Alem v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 148 at paras 14–15. Because the Respondent suggests, one would possibly perceive the observe to precise a priority relating to the household’s wealth, and thus their financial incentive to return to Cuba, though it will take a beneficiant studying and a good diploma of inference to take action. Regardless, even with a beneficiant studying, the officer’s causes don’t analyze, take into account or discuss with materials proof relating to the Candidates’ financial ties to Cuba (notably the truth that all three personal actual property there), or any proof relating to their social ties (notably shut members of the family, together with those that draw on their assist). The proof relating to their ties to and institution in Cuba are supportive, although not determinative, of a discovering that the household would return to Cuba to renew their life there following their go to to Canada.
In Bteich v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1230, Justice Shore acknowledged:
On this case at hand, the Applicant has sturdy ties in Canada with well-established and legally established members of his household. This Court docket agrees with the Applicant’s submissions as summarized under at paragraphs 12 to fifteen: the Officer shouldn’t have drawn adverse inferences from the Applicant’s household ties in Canada. If something, the Officer ought to have thought-about the monetary assist the Applicant’s household supplies as a optimistic issue. On the very least, the Officer ought to have justified his/her reasoning: it’s unreasonable to deduce that Applicant will stay within the nation illegally just because he has sturdy household ties in Canada.
Lastly, if somebody has lived in a rustic their entire life, it could be unreasonable for an officer to find out that their ties are weak. Because the Federal Court docket famous in Jalili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1267:
For my part, the Determination suffers from the difficulties addressed in that jurisprudence. The Determination turns considerably on the Officer’s conclusion that Ms. Jalili has weak monetary and private ties to Afghanistan. Nevertheless, in relation to her private ties, Ms. Jalili emphasizes that she has lived in Afghanistan all through her life and at the moment lives along with her two daughters and three grandchildren, for whom she has had duty as a caregiver for near a decade, these youngsters now being ages eight, six and two. Ms. Jalili’s function as her grandchildren’s caregiver is supported by the letter from her daughters submitted along with her TRV software. Towards that backdrop, it’s obscure the premise for the Officer’s conclusion that Ms. Jalili has weak private ties to Afghanistan. This isn’t to say that the character of her ties to Afghanistan mandated any specific end in her TRV software. Nevertheless, as they level to a conclusion opposite to that of the Officer, the absence within the Determination of any reference to, or evaluation of, the character of Ms. Jalili’s household relationships and caregiver function in Afghanistan helps the inference that these particulars have been missed.
Your Present Employment Scenario
In Dhanoa v. Canada, for instance, the Federal Court docket famous that:
The thought that [the applicant] would abandon his spouse and youngsters as a way to benefit from higher socioeconomic alternatives right here is distasteful. It’s quite sanctimonious to counsel that our society is extra of a draw for him than India, the place he can be within the bosom of his household, just because he would have 30 items of silver in his pocket. As per Timothy 6:10 “for the love of cash is the basis of all evil.”
In Cao v. Canada, affirmed in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1144, a 27-year outdated citizen of the Folks’s Republic of China who was provided a job as a prepare dinner at a Chinese language restaurant in Quebec. The visa officer refused his software as he was not happy that the applicant was a real customer who would depart Canada upon the expiry of his work allow. The officer primarily based this determination the applicant’s inadequate monetary ties to China, his modest wage, and restricted development alternatives in China. Justice Martineau discovered the Officer’s rejection on the premise of s. 179 of the IRPR to be fully unreasonable. He famous that the rejection of the work allow software as a result of the applicant would make more cash in Canada than in China relied on the very issue which might induce somebody to return right here quickly within the first place as the primary purpose for conserving that particular person out.
Monetary Ties
In addressing monetary ties it is very important observe that if somebody in an software is wealthier than the overall inhabitants they need to not assume that officers will know this. Because the Federal Court docket of Canada famous in Anand v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 372, comparative proof have to be put in the direction of an officer. As effectively, as Madam Justice Go famous in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1486, it’s essential to be clear as to doable financial ties that can’t be assumed. In that case, Madam Justice Go decided that it was affordable for a visa officer to not know that somebody can be inheriting a household farm as a result of this was not clearly acknowledged within the software.
Ample Funds
Candidates who’ve household companies and are counting on funds within the enterprise ought to clarify their possession stake and entry to funds within the enterprise. In Saif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 680, Justice Southcott acknowledged that an applicant having a joint checking account with a enterprise was inadequate proof of entry to funds, and that an officer was affordable in writing the next:
… Applicant is the vice-president of a household enterprise, Saif Eshaq Zai Ltd. Enterprise license submitted. Letter from president of the corporate signifies that applicant has shares within the firm nevertheless share of shares just isn’t declared. Firm financial institution statements reviewed together with: Financial institution statements from Azizi financial institution with Afghan funds exhibiting quite a few money deposits in addition to deposits from unknown named people. Financial institution statements from Ghazanfar Financial institution with US funds exhibiting massive deposit of $200,000 US. Financial institution assertion from Ghazanfar Financial institution with Euro funds exhibiting “switch” or financial institution switch” with massive transactions of 100,000 Euro and 150,000 Euro. I acknowledge that there are firm funds nevertheless it’s unclear what funds, if any, can be found to the applicant for the aim of journey to Canada as proof of property submitted doesn’t clearly reveal applicant’s private property or funds comparable to private financial institution statements, earnings earned, share of firm shares, private property and so on. …
In Steitie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 946, Justice Diner dominated that if neither the visa workplace directions nor IRCC Steering on an LMIA exemption code require an applicant to supply proof of financial savings or property, then an officer who has issues about an applicant’s monetary standing should make a transparent request for such paperwork.
In Kaleka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1457, Justice Zinn dominated the place an applicant doesn’t present financial institution statements, and as an alternative only a financial institution assertion, procedural equity doesn’t require that the applicant be supplied with a chance to supply statements. It is because financial institution statements present a complete view of funds over time. This precept was affirmed in Mostofi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1496.
In Lachal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2045, Justice Pentney scrutinized the supply of funds of a customer visa software to determine issues that future candidates can presumably anticipate, together with the significance of consistency relating to who’s offering the funds, whether or not funds are in decline and the significance of candidates offering details about their very own funds even when they don’t seem to be paying for a visit.
Lastly, in Malasi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 10, Madam Justice Pallota dominated that not like in examine allow purposes, inadequate proof of funds aren’t determinative of whether or not somebody will go away Canada by the top of the interval licensed for his or her keep in a brief resident visa software. This precept was affirmed in Akhoondian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1181.
Restricted Employment Prospects
Because the Federal Court docket famous in Ekpenyong v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2019 FC 1245, it’s unreasonable to state that somebody has restricted employment prospects if they’re already employed with out offering extra data. As effectively, stating somebody’s wage as a adverse with out offering a sign as as to whether that wage is definitely low for the realm shall be unreasonable. Lastly, though the prospect of higher job alternatives in Canada is an element to contemplate, the truth that somebody is coming from a rustic with a considerably decrease lifestyle than Canada shouldn’t preclude them from acquiring a visa.
Addressing Newfoundland v. Nurses
The Supreme Court docket of Canada determination in Newfoundland Nurses has significantly difficult issues. By eliminating the “adequacy of causes” take a look at as a stand-alone floor for judicial evaluate, the Supreme Court docket of Canada has in impact signalled to Citizenship and Immigration Canada that it may refuse choices primarily based on boilerplate, minimal causes, understanding that reviewing judges should take into account whether or not the choice was affordable primarily based on the file as a complete.
Justice Zinn has offered some steering in the way to method such circumstances in Agidi v. Canada, 2013 FC 691, the place he wrote:
The applicant within the written submissions argues that the officer breached the responsibility of equity by failing to supply enough causes for his determination, and likewise that the choice is unreasonable. The respondent is fast to level out, appropriately, that “adequacy of causes” is now not a stand-alone floor of judicial evaluate, in gentle of the Supreme Court docket’s determination inNewfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 [Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union] at para 14. I agree; nevertheless, the choice rendered should nonetheless be affordable by way of “the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility inside the decision-making course of [and] whether or not the choice falls inside a spread of doable, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the details and regulation:” Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47.
…
Within the absence of any actual causes within the CTR as to why the officer reached his conclusion that the applicant had not happy him that the applicant wouldn’t go away Canada on the finish of her meant three week keep, this determination is unreasonable and have to be put aside. Though this Court docket ought to first look to complement earlier than subverting the officer’s causes and will look to the file to take action (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union, above, at para 12), a evaluate of the file nearly solely reveals elements – these canvassed instantly above – that strongly assist the alternative conclusion to that reached by the officer; particularly she has been invited by a Canadian good friend to go to and vacation along with her for 3 weeks (and the good friend supplies an affidavit to the impact), and she or he leaves behind in Nigeria a job, a husband, two minor youngsters, and property. How on these details can it fairly be stated that she has failed to determine on the steadiness of chances that she’s going to go away Canada on the conclusion of her go to?
Earlier Refusals
In Arodu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1476, Justice Little held that it’s unreasonable to conclude that earlier refusals alone point out whether or not a person will go away Canada, notably when the officer fails to contemplate the applicant’s rationalization for these refusals of their software.
Together with Declarations
When submitting visa purposes, it could be useful to incorporate a declaration from the applicant stating that he/she understands the character of non permanent entry, and that he/she is not going to overstay. Because the Federal Court docket famous in Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 499:
It’s obvious that the visa officer has additionally failed to contemplate every other causes raised by the applicant to assist her declare that she would return to the PRC. For instance, her examine plan states that her fiancé lives in China, he owns his personal enterprise there and he has bought an condo in her identify. The applicant’s declaration explains that her fiancé just isn’t fascinated about dwelling overseas however that her examine “can also be one a part of the preparation for our future profession; subsequently I cannot keep in Canada for long run” (see para VI of the declaration, Applicant’s File [AR] at 28). The declaration additionally states that the applicant plans to have a household in China and to handle her dad and mom there and that she understands the repercussions of failing to go away Canada (at paras VII and IX, AR at 28-29). As acknowledged in Cao v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 941 at para 13 [Cao], “[t]he determination to submit the applicant’s declaration just isn’t a banal gesture. The declaration is a transparent assertion that the applicant perceive the implications of overstaying his welcome in Canada, and because of this, it is not going to occur.”
As effectively, the truth that an announcement could also be self serving doesn’t imply that an officer can disregard it, as an applicant will essentially produce proof that’s helpful to their case. . This has been affirmed in a number of circumstances, together with LOTM v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2013 FC 957, at para.27-29, citing SMD v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2010 FC 319, Ugalde v Canada (Minister of Public Security & Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 458, and Ahmed v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), 2004 FC 226), and Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1210.
Objective of Go to
In Agidi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2013 FC 691, the Federal Court docket discovered {that a} (compelling) purpose to go to Canada just isn’t required as a way to subject a TRV.
In Guillermo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 61, the Federal Court docket affirmed that visits to shut members of the family are a suitable goal of go to.
In Gao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 127, Madam Justice Whyte Nowak reiterated that the assertion in a refusal that “[t]he goal of your go to to Canada just isn’t in keeping with a brief keep given the main points you could have offered in your software” is unreasonable if unexplained.
Scenario in Nation of Origin
The jurisprudence is combined relating to whether or not a visa officer can refuse an software largely primarily based on the scenario in an individual’s nation of origin. In Demyati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Roy acknowledged:
What seems to have been crucial issue within the refusal was the truth that the applicant is a Syrian nationwide who has been dwelling outdoors of Syria for many of his life. The choice-maker appears to have concluded that given the scenario in his nation of origin, he wouldn’t be inclined to return to his nation of nationality if his residence standing within the United Arab Emirates have been to alter. Given the file as it’s earlier than the Court docket, this appears extra like a hunch primarily based on hypothesis than a justification supported by some proof. If that might represent some type of justification, this could lack transparency and intelligibility with no extra full articulation.
Youngsters Visiting Alone
Pursuant to the Federal Court docket of Canada’s determination in Sangchai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 376, visa officers should make sure that they don’t apply the identical requirements in assessing the assorted guidelines elements when assessing customer visa purposes for youngsters. For instance, it will be unreasonable for an officer to low cost the proof of college enrollment on the bottom that it may very well be cancelled at any time as this may very well be true of any applicant attending an academic establishment of their dwelling nation.
The Test Bins
In Afuah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 596, Justice McHaffie famous that the letter acquired by a visa or allow applicant is the one foundation they’re given to clarify why they’ve been refused the power to journey to Canada. Whereas efficiencies are gained in high-volume decision-making by kind letters and check-boxes, this doesn’t imply that these letters and packing containers could be ignored because of this. They continue to be the explanations given for the choice, and if they don’t seem to be justified, clear, and intelligible, they don’t seem to be affordable.
Non-Private Elements
Sadly, there could also be different elements that aren’t related to the person that can impression whether or not a visa shall be refused. As demonstrated within the picture under, a visa officer coaching information states that borderline circumstances from Liaoning, Guangdong, Hebei, Fujian, and Henan would possible be refused, just because the candidates are from areas of excessive threat. Whereas one hopes that this isn’t the case, it’s tough to fully discard coaching manuals which include directions like this.
The Objective of [the Applicant’s] go to to Canada is inconsistent with a brief keep
It is a widespread line in customer visa refusals. In Naderiboroujeni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 684, Justice Manson dominated that with out additional rationalization it’s unreasonable.
Prior Refugee Declare
In Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 227, Madam Justice Kane dominated that visa officers can not refuse a customer visa declare solely as a result of somebody has a refused refugee declare elsewhere, as this could suggest that somebody may by no means achieve success in coming into Canada on a brief foundation.
A Closing Observe
It is very important observe that even when some elements of a choice are affordable if a number of elements are unreaosnable then the choice as a complete may very well be rendered unreasonable. Because the Federal Court docket of Canada famous in Peiro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1146:
Contemplating these three elements, the Officer’s determination seems unreasonable. Whereas the function of this Court docket on judicial evaluate is to not reweigh the proof, two of the three causes given by the Officer aren’t affordable, primarily based on the file.
The explanations don’t enable this Court docket to grasp why the choice was made with respect to the Officer’s determination regarding household ties or financial motives to stay in Canada. I can solely conclude that the Officer misconstrued the proof as a complete in assessing the Applicant’s software.
