Federal Court Dismisses Visa Refusal Judicial Review

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260619 Docket: IMM-21468-24 Citation: 2026 FC 836 Ottawa, Ontario, June 19, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a visa officer’s [Officer] refusal to grant him a temporary resident visa [Decision]. The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because the [NAME] [[NAME]] Officer failed to engage with the evidence provided and send a procedural fairness letter to allow him to address any concerns. [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Background Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. On June 12, 2024, he applied for a temporary resident visa [TRV] for a two-week stay in Canada to visit his brother who is a Canadian citizen. In support of his TRV application, the Applicant submitted the following documents (Applicant Record [AR] at p 11): A letter confirming his ownership and role as the Chief Executive Officer of [NAME]; The [NAME]’ official registration documents; A copy of [COMPANY] account statements covering the period from February to June 2024 with a closing balance of 29 394 670.12 Nigerian Naira (25,787.56$ Canadian dollars); A reference letter issued by [COMPANY], confirming his good standing; A copy of the [NAME]’s letter of invitation; A copy of the [NAME]’s Canadian passport; The Applicant’s Nigerian land title certificate; A copy of the Applicant’s wedding certificate and wedding pictures. [ 4 ] On November 15, 2024, an [NAME] refused the Applicant’s TRV application on the basis that his assets as well as his financial circumstances were insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel. The [NAME] notes state that in addition to the Applicant’s lack of funds, the [NAME] “[is] not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated strong economic ties to their home country that would serve as incentive to return, noting that there is limited information provided regarding their claimed business or employment, such as but not limited to evidence of ongoing business operations or income generated from their declared employment” (Certified Tribunal Record at p 61).

III. Issues and standard of review [ 5 ] The sole issues in this case are whether the [NAME]’s Decision is reasonable and whether there was a breach of procedural fairness. [ 6 ] The applicable standard of review on the substance of the [NAME]’s decision is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME], [2019] 4 SCR 653 [ [NAME] ] at paras 10, 25; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [ Mason ]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility ( [NAME] at para 99; [NAME] at para 59). However, the reviewing Court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker” ( [NAME] at para 125). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping” exercise, it is a robust form of review ( [NAME] at para 13; [NAME] at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached” ( [NAME] at paras 100, 106; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 at para 49). [ 7 ] On the issue of procedural fairness, a s held in [NAME] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022 FCA 196 at paragraph 5, no standard of review is applied, but the review of allegations of breaches of procedural fairness is best reflected in the standard of correctness: “[w]hen engaging in a procedural fairness analysis, [the] Court must assess the procedures and safeguards required, and, if they have not been met, the Court must intervene” (see also [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]), [2019] 1 FCR 121 [ Canadian Pacific ] at paras 33–34, 54; [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2023 FCA 74 at para 57). As reiterated in Canadian Pacific , the role of the reviewing court on procedural fairness issues is simply to determine whether the procedure that was followed was fair, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case: “[t]he ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” (at paras 54, 56).

IV. Analysis [ 8 ] The Applicant argues that the Decision is unreasonable because the Officer’s findings are not supported by the evidence. The Applicant submits that he provided all the documents reasonably required for the TRV application. However, the Officer’s Decision does not analyze the contradictory evidence (personal bank statements, [NAME]’ official registration documents) or explain how they concluded that he did not have sufficient funds. Furthermore, the Applicant also argues that the [NAME] erred in concluding that he did not have strong economic ties to his home country. The letter confirming his ownership of [NAME], the [NAME]’ official registration documents, his land title certificate as well as his marriage certificate and wedding pictures are cumulative factors that demonstrate his strong ties to his home country. The Applicant submits that the [NAME]’s Decision does not provide an evidence-based explanation that is transparent, intelligible and justified. [ 9 ] Additionally, the Applicant submits that while the [NAME] has the discretionary power to decide whether to grant a TRV, their power must be exercised reasonably without breaching procedural fairness. The Applicant argues that the Officer failed to give him the opportunity to clarify any concerns they had before rendering the Decision. [ 10 ] I find that the [NAME]’s decision is reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness. [ 11 ] First, the Officer’s conclusion that “there is limited information provided regarding their claimed business or employment, such as but not limited to evidence of ongoing business operations or income generated from their declared employment” [emphasis added] is reasonable on the financial evidence provided by the Applicant. Indeed, the Applicant provided his personal bank statements which show many deposits made by unknown entities, and only very few appear to be linked with the Applicant’s two businesses. As a result, the [NAME]’s Decision is reasonable because the Applicant failed to provide sufficient information on his [NAME], and the income generated, in order to satisfy them that he would return to Nigeria at the end of his stay. [ 12 ] Moreover, as a self-employed person, the Applicant was required to submit all of the documents stated in the Temporary Resident Visa: Lagos Visa Instructions (https://[NAME] which is available on the [NAME]’s website. The Temporary Resident Visa: Lagos Visa Instructions provide adequate notice of the case to meet to obtain a TRV from Nigeria to Canada. The instructions state that [NAME] who is self-employed must include, in their application, the “business registration, tax clearance certificates, trade certificates, license and financial documents, certified business bank account statements for the past 6 months” (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, “Temporary Resident Visa: Lagos Visa Office Instructions” , February 2018 at p 6 [Instructions]). Although the Applicant submitted a letter confirming his ownership and role as the Chief Executive Officer of [NAME] as well as the [NAME]’ official registration documents, he neglected to submit his [NAME] “clearance certificates, trade certificates and certified business bank account statements for the past 6 months” . Unfortunately, the Applicant failed to provide all the required documentation for his TRV application. [ 13 ] As a result, based on his omission to include important documents as notified in the Instructions, including more fulsome evidence of income generated from the [NAME], the [NAME] was not satisfied that the Applicant would return to Nigeria at the end of his stay, despite some existing evidence of his economic ties with his home country. The Officer’s conclusion is intelligible in the context of the financial information provided and the Instructions, against which the Applicant’s temporary resident visa request was evaluated. [ 14 ] Consequently, I am satisfied that the Decision was responsive to the evidence submitted and that the Officer’s ruling has the qualities that make the Officer’s reasoning logical and consistent in relation to the relevant legal and factual constraints applicable in this case ( [NAME] at paras 8, 58–61, 64 ; [NAME] at paras 12, 15, 24, 81, 84–86). [ 15 ] With regards to the issue of procedural fairness, [NAME] bears the onus of providing the officer with all relevant documentation to support their case and to satisfy the officer that they will not remain in Canada once their visa has expired ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1613 at para 11 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 2032 at para 6). [NAME] always has the onus to “put their best foot forward” and provide all necessary information in support of their application. There is no obligation on an officer to notify [NAME] of the weaknesses in their application, by way of a procedural fairness letter, if [NAME] has not met their burden to obtain a TRV and leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay ( [NAME] at paras 19–20). Since the issue in this matter is not one of credibility, but one of sufficiency of evidence, there is no duty to provide the Applicant with an additional opportunity to substantiate their application (see also [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 2014 at para 10). [ 16 ] The Applicant may make a new application if he continues to wish to come to Canada. If he intends to do so, he would be well advised to consult the Instructions, provide complete financial and corporate information as instructed, and include his wife’s birth certificate (as also instructed in the Instructions at p 6).

V. Conclusion [ 17 ] This application for judicial review is dismissed and there is no question of [NAME] importance for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-21468-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-21468-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: June 18, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 19, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] For The APPLICANT [APPELLANT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Douglasdale Professional Centre Barristers and Solicitors Calgary (Alberta) For The APPLICANT [NAME] [NAME] of Canada Calgary (Alberta) For The RESPONDENT