Federal Court Dismisses Visa Refusal Judicial Review Applications

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260629 Docket: IMM-21585-24 Citation: 2026 FC 875 Ottawa, Ontario, June 29, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Favel BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [APPELLANT] [[NAME]] and her adult daughter, [APPELLANT] [[NAME]], seek judicial review of two decisions dated October 1, 2024, made by the same visa officer [Officer]. The Applicants challenge both decisions in the same application for judicial review, which is a problem that is addressed below. In both decisions and for slightly different reasons, the Officer denied the Applicants’ applications for temporary resident visas [TRV]. The Officer was concerned that the Applicants would not leave Canada at the end of their visit. [ 2 ] The Applicants say that the decisions are unreasonable and were made in a procedurally flawed manner. They say their TRV applications complied with the law. They also say their TRV applications demonstrate that they wanted to travel to Canada for tourism and that they intended to leave at the end of their stay. Finally, they say that the Officer breached procedural fairness by not providing adequate reasons and by making credibility findings without allowing the Applicants to respond. [ 3 ] The Respondent says that only the refusal of [NAME]’s TRV application is properly before the Court and that the refusal is reasonable. [ADDRESS] should not entertain the [COMPANY] application for judicial review. If the Court does judicially review the [RESPONDENT] application, the Respondent says the Officer’s decision concerning it is reasonable. In either case, the Applicants failed to establish that they would leave at the end of their visit to Canada. The Applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their stated purpose for visiting Canada, and the remote nature of [NAME]’s employment did not convince the Officer that the Applicants would leave Canada at the end of their stay. The Applicants essentially disagree with the Officer’s weighing of the evidence. [ 4 ] I find the Officer’s decision in relation to the refusal of [NAME]’s TRV application is reasonable. I agree with the Respondent that the refusal of the [RESPONDENT] application is not before the Court, however, I am exercising my discretion to consider it. After considering the submissions in relation to the [COMPANY] refusal, I also find that the decision to deny it is reasonable. Both decisions were also made in a procedurally fair manner. The applications for judicial review are dismissed.

II. Background [ 5 ] [NAME] and [COMPANY] are Iranian citizens. [NAME] works remotely as a marketing manager while the [COMPANY] is self-employed at a [NAME]. [ 6 ] [NAME] is divorced and both of her parents are deceased. She has two brothers and a sister, all three of which live and work in Iran. The [COMPANY] is single. The [COMPANY] father was born in Iran and continues to live and work in Iran. [ 7 ] [NAME] applied for a TRV on September 1, 2024, while the [COMPANY] applied for a TRV on August 25, 2024. [NAME] and [COMPANY] wanted to visit Calgary, Banff, Vancouver and Whistler from March 18, 2025 to April 1, 2025. They arranged a tour with [NAME], a business based out of North Vancouver, British Columbia.

III. Decisions Under Review [ 8 ] On October 1, 2024, the Officer sent the Applicants each a letter informing them that their TRV applications were denied. The Officer was not satisfied that both women would leave Canada at the end of their stay, which paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 requires. The Officer’s Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes concerning both [NAME] and [COMPANY] also form part of the reasons for the decisions under review. The GCMS notes for [NAME] are more detailed and lengthier than the notes for the [COMPANY]. [ 9 ] [NAME], the Officer’s letter and GCMS notes indicate that her purpose of travel was vague and poorly documented, her remote employment situation does not show she is financially established or that she has strong ties to Iran, she did not have significant family ties outside Canada, and that the details of her application are not consistent with a temporary stay in Canada. [ 10 ] As for the [COMPANY], the Officer’s letter and GCMS notes indicate that they were concerned that she did not have significant family ties outside Canada, she does not appear to be sufficiently established in Iran, the purpose of her visit appeared vague and poorly documented and, generally, that the details of her application are not consistent with a temporary stay in Canada.

IV. Preliminary Matter [ 11 ] The Respondent submitted that the Applicants are improperly challenging two decisions, contrary to Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106. The [COMPANY] was ineligible to apply for a visa as a dependent child of [NAME] and the GCMS notes do not indicate that the [APPELLANT] was refused as a dependent applicant. The Applicants have not sought relief from Rule 302, and it is improper to raise the [COMPANY] challenge to her decision at this time ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 470 at para 15). The [COMPANY] application for judicial review is futile as the result of her application for a visa as a dependent child is inevitable. It would serve no purpose to remit the [COMPANY] matter for redetermination ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2026 FC 237 at para 40). Alternatively, should the Court decide to grant relief from Rule 302, both applications for judicial review should be dismissed. [ 12 ] The Applicants submit that, regardless of the [COMPANY] age, she still relies on [NAME]’s income for the purpose of her own application. The decisions were also made on the same day and likely by the same officer. It is therefore in the interests of justice to hear both matters. [ 13 ] I agree with the Respondent that Rule 302 applies and that the Applicants have not sought relief from its application in relation to the [COMPANY] challenge of the refusal of her TRV application. However, for clarity I am exercising my discretion to grant relief from the application of Rule 302 and, even after doing so, I am dismissing the application for judicial review in relation to the challenge to the decision concerning the [COMPANY] application.

V. Issues and Standards of Review [ 14 ] The only issues in this judicial review are whether the decisions are reasonable and whether they were made in a procedurally fair manner. [ 15 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 12-13 [ [NAME] ]). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified ( [NAME] at para 15). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the [NAME] ( [NAME] at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the [NAME], and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( [NAME] at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 16 ] For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( [NAME] at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the [NAME], and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( [NAME] at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 17 ] Regarding procedural fairness, the Court’s role “is to determine whether the proceedings were fair in all of the circumstances” ( [NAME] v Canada , 2025 FCA 96 at para 2 citing [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54-56).

VI. Positions of the Parties A. Reasonableness of the Decision [ 18 ] The Applicants’ submissions are virtually identical and can be summarized as follows: contrary to the Officer’s determination, the Applicants’ travel plans are not vague but are comprehensive and clear ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 811); the Officer failed to consider that the Applicants demonstrated their strong establishment in Iran, as shown by [NAME]’s bank statement and current employment, and her close ties to her siblings ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 162; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2009 FC 837); the Officer’s determination that [NAME]’s remote work weakened [NAME]’s ties to Iran is also unreasonable in light of the other strong evidence of her employment situation. The Applicants also submit that the Officer decided their applications based on extraneous evidence and pre-conceived notions about Iranians. [ 19 ] The Respondent submits that a [NAME] must satisfy various requirements before being issued a visa, one of which is satisfying an officer that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay. The Applicants did not provide sufficient details of the purpose of their travel. The adequacy of the Officer’s reasons is not a stand-alone ground to quash the decisions, and an officer’s reasons are not to be assessed against a standard of perfection. Rather, the adequacy of the reasons must be assessed with the reasonableness of the decision as a whole ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ), 2016 FC 690 at para 31 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] at 91, 97-103 and 126). The Officer reasonably considered that the Applicants, who are immediate family members, would be travelling together and the Applicants both failed to provide sufficient and detailed evidence that close relationships would pull them back to Iran ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1269 at para 17). Officers are presumed to have reviewed all of the evidence so any assertion that evidence was not considered must be rejected ( [NAME] at para 28). In effect, the Applicants disagree with the weight assigned to their evidence. B. Procedural Fairness [ 20 ] The Applicants submit that the Officer failed to provide reasons demonstrating what was wrong with their applications and failed to allow the Applicants to respond to their concerns ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2004 FC 284 at para 22; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 1072). They say the Officer made implicit credibility findings and used extrinsic evidence and pre-conceived notions about Iranians in making the decisions. Finally, the Applicants argue that the Officer also breached the duty of legitimate expectation by ignoring the evidence in their TRV applications ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 751 at para 15; [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2013 SCC 36). [ 21 ] The Respondent does not make submissions on procedural fairness.

VII. Analysis A. Decision concerning [NAME] [ 22 ] I find that the Officer’s decision concerning [NAME] is reasonable. The GCMS notes indicate that the decision was based on [NAME] not having significant family ties outside of Canada, that she would be travelling with her immediate family member thereby diminishing her motivation to return home, that the purpose of the visit was poorly documented and the remote nature of [NAME]’s work did not strengthen her connection to her country of residence. Though not extensive, the reasons provide a rational analysis and sufficient reasons for arriving at their conclusions. The chain of analysis is also supported by the record and shows that the Officer considered [NAME]’s submissions. [NAME] has also failed to show that the Officer relied on pre-conceived notions about Iranians. There are no errors and the decision concerning [NAME] is reasonable in light of the record. B. Decision concerning the [COMPANY] [ 23 ] I find that the Officer’s decision concerning the [COMPANY] is reasonable. First, if the decision on [NAME]’s TRV application is determined to be reasonable, which I have found, then the [COMPANY] refusal would automatically fail if her application was based on being dependent on [NAME]. Even if her application were considered independently, since she is an adult applicant, it also fails for insufficient evidence provided to the Officer. Specifically, the [COMPANY] has relied completely on [NAME]’s TRV application submissions. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the [COMPANY] discussed her connection with her family members, aside from her mother and father, thus weakening her ties to Iran. This was a reasonable finding based on what was before the Officer. [ 24 ] As with [NAME], the [COMPANY] has also failed to demonstrate that the Officer relied on pre-conceived notions about Iranians. There is nothing in the record to support this assertion. C. Procedural Fairness [ 25 ] I disagree with the Applicants’ argument that the Officer breached their procedural fairness rights; Officers are not required to give detailed reasons. I also disagree with the Applicants that the Officer made adverse credibility findings, explicit or implicit. The Officer made no comment on the credibility or lack of credibility of the Applicants’ evidence. The Officer considered and weighed the evidence. The Officer was not satisfied that the evidence supported the contention that the Applicants would leave Canada at the end of their stay. [ 26 ] Accordingly, there is no breach of procedural fairness.

VIII. Conclusion [ 27 ] The decisions concerning [NAME]’s and the [COMPANY] applications are reasonable. There is also no breach of procedural fairness in either decision.

JUDGMENT in IMM-21585-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review of the Officer’s October 1, 2024 decision concerning [NAME] is dismissed; The application for judicial review of the Officer’s October 1, 2024 decision concerning the [COMPANY] is dismissed; There is no question for certification; and There is no order as to costs. "Paul Favel" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-21585-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan DATE OF HEARING: April 30, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: June 29, 2026 APPEARANCES : [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], SK [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA SASKATOON, SK For The Respondent