Federal Court Grants Judicial Review of TRV Refusal

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-20802-24 Citation: 2026 FC 805 Toronto, Ontario, June 16, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of [NAME] [[NAME]] to refuse his application for a temporary resident visa [TRV] to write the Sprinkler Fitter exam so that he could qualify for Canada’s Federal Skilled Trades immigration program. [ 2 ] For the following brief reasons, this application for judicial review is granted.

II.

BACKGROUND A. Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant, Mr. [APPELLANT], is a citizen of Pakistan. He has been living in Saudi Arabia since 2013, where he works in operations and maintenance at a hospital. At the time of his TRV application, his wife and two young children lived in Pakistan. [ 4 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] has been pursuing training to become eligible for a trade equivalency in British Columbia as a certified Sprinkler Fitter. In December 2023, Mr. [APPELLANT] was invited to write the certification exam to receive his British Columbia Certificate of Qualification and his Red Seal Certification as a Sprinkler Fitter. This exam can only be written in-person, in Canada. [ 5 ] In order to write the exam, Mr. [APPELLANT] applied for a TRV to visit Canada from May 28, 2024 to June 3, 2024. [ 6 ] Mr. [APPELLANT]’s visa application was refused on May 16, 2024. The notes in [NAME]’s [NAME] [[NAME]] indicate that the application was refused because the reviewing officer found that 1) Mr. [APPELLANT] does not have significant family ties outside Canada, 2) the purpose of his visit was not consistent with a temporary stay, and 3) his immigration status outside his country of nationality or national residence indicated that he would not leave Canada at the end of his stay. [ 7 ] On May 28, 2024, Mr. [APPELLANT] sought judicial review of this refusal. In August 2024, Mr. [APPELLANT] accepted a settlement offer from [NAME] to have his application returned for reconsideration by another officer. As part of the settlement, Mr. [APPELLANT] had the opportunity to provide additional supporting documents. [ 8 ] On October 27, 2024, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application was refused again, on the grounds that his employment situation did not show that he was financially established in his country of residence and because he did not have significant family ties outside Canada. This decision is the subject of the present judicial review. [ 9 ] The officer who conducted the reconsideration explained in their [NAME] notes that Mr. [APPELLANT]’s family ties outside Canada were not strong because he lived and worked in Saudia Arabia, and his wife and children lived in Pakistan at the time the decision was issued. The officer also considered Mr. [APPELLANT]’s modest salary to be a “push factor” that could lead him to stay in Canada beyond his authorized visiting period. Finally, the officer also found that Mr. [APPELLANT] has a limited history of international travel to countries comparable to Canada.

III. ANALYSIS [ 10 ] I will [NAME] this application for the following brief reasons. As noted above, the Applicant has always been clear that he wishes to immigrate to Canada permanently under the Federal Skilled Trades Program [FSTP], as a sprinkler fitter. In his TRV application, he explained that his short-term reason for wanting to visit Canada was to support his longer-term goal of obtaining permanent residence under the FSTP. More specifically, the evidence shows that Mr. [APPELLANT]’s Trade Qualifier application with [NAME] had been approved, and the next step was to write a mandatory exam. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application under the FSTP could not proceed unless he was able to come to Canada to write the exam. In other words, the rationale underlying Mr. [APPELLANT]’s request for a TRV closely aligned with (and was a prerequisite to) his application for permanent residence under the FSTP. In this sense, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application clearly implicated subsection 22(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , known as the “dual intent” provision: Dual intent (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. Double intention (2) L’intention qu’il a de s’établir au Canada n’empêche pas l’étranger de devenir résident temporaire sur preuve qu’il aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée. [ 11 ] In reviewing the officer’s reasons, I am convinced that the officer did not consider Mr. [APPELLANT]’s short- and long-term goals in the aggregate. While under subsection 22(2) of the IRPA a foreign national must still satisfy an officer that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay, this assessment should be undertaken with both the foreign national’s short- and long-term goals in mind: [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2022 FC 1130 at paras 29-31. Put differently, an officer’s decision should reflect the full context in which an application is made. In this case, the officer’s brief reasons do not indicate that this was done. [ 12 ] I also find that the officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s living arrangements was, at best, incomplete. It was relevant for the officer to observe that Mr. [APPELLANT] lived in Saudi Arabia, while his immediate family resided in Pakistan. In certain circumstances, this fact could reasonably support a finding that an applicant has weak family ties outside Canada. However, to reasonably arrive at this conclusion, it was also important for the officer to acknowledge the Applicant’s lengthy return trips to Pakistan, and his explanation that these trips were to see his immediate family, including his wife and two young children. I note from the record that the [NAME] and children also had visitor visas for Saudi Arabia and appear to have travelled there on at least one occasion. These were significant indicators of the Applicant’s family ties outside Canada, and they ought to have been considered by the officer.

IV.

CONCLUSION [ 13 ] For the above reasons, this application for judicial review will be granted. The parties do not propose a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-20802-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different officer. There is no question for certification. No costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-20802-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CONSIDERED IN WRITING AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH JOINT REQUEST BY THE PARTIES DATED APRIL 28, 2026.

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 16, 2025 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL]. [COUNSEL] and Solicitor Caledon East, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent