Federal Court Grants Judicial Review: TRV Refusal Unreasonable

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260601 Docket: IMM-3977-25 Citation: 2026 FC 713 Ottawa, Ontario, June 1, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Gleeson BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, of the February 4, 2025 decision of an officer with [RESPONDENT], [NAME] [the Officer] refusing her temporary resident visa [TRV] application. [ 2 ] The Applicant argues the decision is unfair and unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider the evidence she provided as part of her application. The Respondent submits the Officer’s findings are justified, transparent, and supported by the evidence. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is granted.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant, a citizen of Iran, has resided in the Philippines since November 2014. She has status in the Philippines under a Special Resident Retiree’s Visa, which provides for an indefinite period of stay and multiple-entry privileges. [ 5 ] The Applicant submitted a TRV application on January 16, 2025, seeking to visit her sister, a [NAME], in Canada.

III. Decision Under Review [ 6 ] In refusing the TRV application, the Officer found that the Applicant had not established that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized period of stay because (1) she has significant family ties in Canada, (2) she does not have significant family ties outside Canada, and (3) her current employment situation does not show that she is financially established in her country of residence. [ 7 ] The relevant portions of the Global Case Management System notes, which form part of the decision, state: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant has significant family ties in Canada. The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada. Applicant did not provide evidence that she has family members in the country of residence. The applicant’s current employment situation does not show that they are financially established in their country of residence. Applicant did not provide documents to demonstrate that her [NAME] is doing well in support of her economic ties. 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.

IV. Issues and Standard of Review [ 8 ] The application raises a single issue – whether the Officer erred in refusing the TRV. [ 9 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer erred in weighing and assessing her evidence, an error which the Applicant submits amounts to a breach of fairness to be reviewed on the standard of correctness. I disagree. [ 10 ] The reasonableness standard of review is the starting point and presumptive standard of review where a court reviews an administrative decision ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 23 [ [RESPONDENT] ]). Although the presumption may be rebutted in those cases where one of the recognized exceptions applies ( [NAME] at para 17; [COMPANY] v [COMPANY] , 2022 SCC 30 at paras 26–28), none of the recognized circumstances warranting derogation from the presumptive standard arise in this case. The Officer’s decision will therefore be reviewed on the standard of reasonableness. [ 11 ] 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 decision maker” ( [RESPONDENT] at para 85; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 SCC 21 at para 8). The party challenging a decision has the burden of demonstrating to a reviewing court “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency” ( [NAME] at para 100). A decision-maker’s failure to consider relevant evidence or meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties may jeopardize the reasonableness of a decision ( [APPELLANT] at paras 126–128).

V. Analysis [ 12 ] The Applicant first submits that the Officer’s conclusion that she will not leave Canada at the end of her stay is not clearly explained or supported by the evidence. The Applicant highlights that her children, [NAME], mother, and other relatives all reside outside Canada and that only her sister resides in Canada. She further highlights the evidence before the Officer disclosed that she had business and financial connections in the Philippines, and that the Officer failed to engage with her positive travel history evidence. She argues that the Officer’s failure to engage with and adequately address evidence which contradicted the Officer’s ultimate conclusion renders the decision unfair or unreasonable. The Applicant also submits that contrary to the well-established principle that judicial review is restricted to the contents of the record before the decision-maker, certain of the arguments advanced by the Respondent supplement the Officer’s reasons. [ 13 ] The Respondent first notes that the Officer’s decision is owed a high degree of deference, that it is not the Court’s role to re-weigh the evidence, and that, absent indications to the contrary which do not arise here, the Officer is presumed to have weighed and considered all of the evidence. The Respondent argues the Officer’s findings are reasonable and supported by the evidentiary record, and that the Officer reasonably assessed the Applicant’s family ties given (1) the absence of evidence corroborating her assertion that her son, [NAME], and [NAME] reside in the Philippines and (2) the evidence that demonstrated the Applicant shared “a deeply rooted and emotional bond” with her sister in Canada. The Respondent also relies on the absence of corroborative documentation relating to the Applicant’s reported financial circumstances and her sources of income, or disclosing how well her business ventures in the Philippines were doing. In the absence of this evidence, the Respondent argues the Officer reasonably refused the TRV application. [ 14 ] I am satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated the Officer’s decision is unreasonable. [ 15 ] The Officer’s finding that the Applicant has significant family ties in Canada and does not have significant ties outside Canada is unreasonable for at least two reasons. First, the Applicant, in her affidavit and submissions before the Officer, expressly identified her family and economic ties to Iran (her country of citizenship), yet the Officer’s reasons are silent in this regard. While not required to address or refer to every piece of evidence, the Officer was required to meaningfully account for the key or central issues raised by the Applicant ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC) at para 16; [RESPONDENT] at para 127). [ 16 ] Second, the Officer’s “family ties” findings in assessing “push/pull” factors appear inconsistent with the evidence. The evidence disclosed all of the Applicant’s family members (her son, daughter, [NAME], mother and five other siblings), with the exception of her sister, reside outside of Canada. The Respondent argues that the evidence demonstrating a close bond between the Applicant and her sister in Canada allowed the Officer to reasonably attribute more weight to the sister’s presence in Canada, thereby justifying the Officer’s conclusions. I accept that the Respondent’s submissions might well disclose a reasonable justification for the Officer’s finding; however, it was for the Officer, not the Respondent, to advance this explanation. The Officer notes the absence of corroborative evidence supporting the Applicant’s sworn statement that she has family members who reside in her country of residence, but this observation does not adequately explain the Officer’s “family ties” findings. [ 17 ] Similarly, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant’s “current employment situation does not show they are financially established in the country of residence” fails to grapple with contrary detailed banking and income evidence, evidence disclosing that the Applicant is in receipt of a substantial monthly pension benefit and that she holds a long-term residential lease in the Philippines. The Officer’s observation that there is a lack of evidence disclosing how well her [NAME] is performing again does not justify the Officer’s conclusions, particularly where the evidence discloses that while a partner in her [NAME]’s business, the Applicant is not employed in the business.

VI. Conclusion [ 18 ] The application for judicial review is granted. [ 19 ] Neither Party has proposed a serious question of general importance for certification, and I agree that none arise.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3977-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The matter is returned for redetermination by a different decision-maker. No question is certified. “Patrick Gleeson” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3977-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026

REASONS and judgment: [NAME] J. DATED: june 1, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] E. [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] E. [COUNSEL] and [NAME], [NAME] of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent