Federal Court Grants Judicial Review for Unreasonable Visa Denial

Date: 20260603 Docket: IMM-7668-25 Citation: 2026 FC 725 Ottawa, Ontario, June 3, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Azmudeh BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview and relevant facts [ 1 ] The Applicant sought judicial review of two consolidated decisions, the original refusal of the temporary resident [NAME] (TRV or visitor [NAME]) on March 3, 2025 and the reconsideration refusal on April 2, 2025. These are my reasons to allow the judicial review of the decisions to refuse the Applicant’s TRV application to Canada. [ 2 ] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria who wanted to visit his fiancée in Canada. His family, namely, his mother and siblings live in Nigeria. He also owns [NAME] in Nigeria, two in the [NAME] and one in the [NAME]. [ 3 ] The TRV application was first refused on the basis that the Officer was not satisfied the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his intended stay, mainly because: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the positive factors on timed by the applicant, including statements or other evidence: The applicant has some ties to their home country— [NAME], mother and siblings, letter of support from [NAME], The applicant has provided a reason for their visit to Canada-visiting declared CAN citizen fiance. However, I have given less weight to rhe positive factors, for the following reasons: Given evidence presented regarding the applicant's personal and business funds history, basis of income, and overall circumstances, the applicant's current employment situation does not show that they are financially established in their country of residence. I also acknowledge explanations regarding recently acquired funds that make up a significant amount of personal funds held. However, there Is limited evidence to demonstrate its overall provenance. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. I carefully considered the applicant's intent to visit declared fiancé [sigh] in Canada who has presented information regarding their status and establishment in support of the applicant's travel. I also acknowledge financial support from the mother of the applicant's fiance. However, I am not satisfied this information outweighs concerns identified regarding the applicant's overall establishment and ties in their home country . Weighing the factors in this application, I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application. (my emphasis) [ 4 ] The Applicant requested the Respondent to reconsider, and the Officer refusing the reconsideration application stated: Request for reconsideration received. Review of application shows no apparent error in law in administration of the act. Application and associated documents submitted prior to decision appear to have been reviewed at time of assessment. No exceptional circumstance has been noted that would merit the re-opening of the application en-lieu of reapplication. Request to reconsider refused.

II. Legal Issue and Standard of Review [ 5 ] The Applicant raised two issues: 1) the TRV and reconsideration refusals are unreasonable, and 2) the Officers breached the Applicant’s procedural rights by not giving him the opportunity to address their concerns when they relied on the [NAME] in assessing the file. [ 6 ] Reasonableness review is a deferential and disciplined evaluation of whether an administrative decision is transparent, intelligible and justified ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65, at paras 12-13 and 15 [ Vavilov ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at paras 8 and 63 [ [NAME] ]). [ 7 ] I have started by reading the decision-maker’s reasons in conjunction with the record that was before them holistically and contextually. As the reviewing judge, guided by Vavilov , at paragraphs 83–84, 87, I have focused on the decision-maker’s reasoning process. I have not considered whether the decision-maker’s decision was correct, or what I would [NAME] if I were deciding the matter myself ( Vavilov , at para 83; Canada (Justice) v DV , 2022 FCA 181 at paras 15, 23). [ 8 ] A reasonable decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrained the decision-maker (see especially Vavilov , at paras 85, 91-97, 103, 105–106, 194; Canada Post Corp v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 67 at paras 2, 28-33 and 61; [NAME] , at paras 8, 59–61, 66). For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant ( Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention. [ 9 ] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] place a positive obligation on [NAME] to establish, among other things, that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay: IRPR, s 183(1). In evaluating [NAME] applications, the Applicant’s financial situation may be a relevant indicator as to whether an individual has met that obligation. [ 10 ] Regarding questions of procedural fairness , as Mr. Justice Régimbald wrote in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 1617 at para 11: The reviewing court must be satisfied of the fairness of the procedure with regard to the circumstances ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 215 at para 6; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 927 at para 4; [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [ [NAME] ] ). In [NAME] , the Federal Court of Appeal noted that trying to “shoehorn the question of procedural fairness into a standard of review analysis is … an unprofitable exercise” (at para 55). Instead, the Court must ask itself whether the party was given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them, and that “[p]rocedural fairness is not sacrificed on the altar of deference” ( [NAME] at para 56).

III. Analysis A. The Refusals were Unreasonable [ 11 ] The officer reviewing the case on reconsideration only provided a [NAME] boilerplate response and did not engage with any of the evidence. I would therefore focus on the reasonableness of the [NAME] officer who refused the application on its merits (the Officer). For the Officer, the determinative issue was the Applicant’s status and establishment in Nigeria. The Officer acknowledged the positive factors on the application, including the Applicant’s “[NAME]” , and “mother and siblings” as “ties to their home country” . [ 12 ] In the lengthy record before the Officer, the Applicant had provided detailed financial information on his companies, and information on how some of the lump sum payments were made on his account, for example on the sale of a truck from his [COMPANY]. His fiancée’s mother had also provided an affidavit with evidence that she would further support the Applicant’s visit. [ 13 ] In a nutshell, the Officer acknowledged that the Applicant’s family members, including mother and siblings, are in Nigeria, that he had a long history of owning and operating multiple businesses. The Officer acknowledged that these are positive factors but were not “satisfied this information outweighs concerns identified about the Applicant’s overall establishment and ties to their home country” . [ 14 ] Here, the evidence on “establishment” and “ties to their home country” was significant. Without further explanation, the Officer’s notes failed to explain why the “evidence presented” did “not show that they are financially established in their country of residence” . In the second paragraph, the Officer also referred to “concerns identified” , without actually articulating anywhere in the reasons what those concerns actually were. [ 15 ] While the Respondent’s counsel pointed to how some financial discrepancies in the various documents gave the Officer the evidentiary foundation for making their findings, the reasons leave a logical gap in what negative factors, if any, outweighed what would otherwise appear as a significant establishment in Nigeria. Though the Respondent’s Counsel made efforts at the hearing to explain how the record suggested the Officer’s conclusion, speculations cannot reasonably bridge those gaps to buttress or supplement an Officer’s decision ( Vavilov at para 96; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 754 at para 6, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1679 at paras 21-23; [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 1469 at para 20; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 568 at para 19). [ 16 ] In addition, while the Applicant had explained that the lump sum deposit in his account resulted from selling a truck, and he had substantiated it, the Officer did not explain their problems with the “recently acquired funds” , or how these related to the ties the Officer identified in the home country. [ 17 ] Moreover, the requirement to leave Canada at the end of a [NAME] is a legal requirement based on the balance of the evidence and not a speculation about an individual's intent. It ensures that people would respect the terms of their [NAME] and follow the legal process. Without any evidence of non-compliance or poor intentions and no analysis on the part of the Officer, one cannot automatically assume that individuals have the intent to break the law by overstaying illegally. This is particularly critical when the Applicant had filed contrary evidence with which the Officer chose not to engage. These included significant evidence of his establishment in the form of [NAME] and family ties in Nigeria, to which the Officer gave positive weight, but then concluded that he was not established in Nigeria without explaining on what evidence they relied such that it outweighed the positive factors. This gap in reasoning means the reasons fail to reveal a rational chain of analysis as required by Vavilov (para 103). [ 18 ] Having found the decision to be unreasonable, I [NAME] not need to assess whether it was reached fairly.

IV. Conclusion [ 19 ] I find that the decisions were unreasonable. The judicial review is therefore granted. [ 20 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-7668-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The Judicial Review is granted without costs. There are no questions to be certified. blank "Negar Azmudeh" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-7668-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: MAY 20, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT AND

JUDGMENT: AZMUDEH J. DATED: JUNE 3, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] for the applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Alberta For the Applicant [NAME] of Canada Department of Justice Canada Calgary, Alberta For The Respondent