Federal Court Sets Aside Unreasonable TRV Refusal

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260527 Docket: IMM-22242-24 Citation: 2026 FC 683 Toronto, Ontario, May 27, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak BETWEEN: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], seeks judicial review of a decision dated October 28, 2024 [Decision] refusing his application for a temporary resident visa [TRV]. An officer [Officer] of [RESPONDENT], [NAME] [IRCC] refused his application as the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant is a genuine visitor who will depart Canada at the end of the period of his authorized stay. [ 2 ] Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, I am granting this application as I find the Decision is unreasonable as it contains significant errors in the Officer’s assessment of the record that cause the Court to lack confidence in the overall Decision.

II. Facts A. The Applicant’s TRV application [ 3 ] The Applicant is a 66-year-old citizen of Pakistan who is retired and resides in Karachi, Pakistan with his wife. On September 28, 2023, he applied for a TRV to Canada to visit his son, daughter-in-law and grandchildren who reside in Winnipeg. The Applicant was seeking to stay in Canada for 10 months, from March 2024 to January 2025. His application was refused. [ 4 ] The Applicant sought judicial review of the decision. The application was resolved with the Respondent agreeing to have the decision set aside and the application remitted for redetermination. [ 5 ] The Applicant provided additional materials to IRCC in support of his TRV application on May 16, 2024. B. The Decision [ 6 ] The IRCC refused the TRV application again as the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period of his authorized stay. [ 7 ] The [NAME] [[NAME]] notes that accompany the Decision state the following bases for the Decision: (i) the Applicant has significant family ties in Canada; (ii) on a past visit to Canada the Applicant did not comply with all conditions outlined in Rule 183 of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227; (iii) the Applicant’s assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel; and (iv) the Applicant has limited employment opportunities and economic ties in Pakistan. [ 8 ] The Officer was of the view that, “[g]iven the current socioeconomic and political environment in the applicant’s country of nationality, prevalent ‘push factors’ exist which could induce the applicant to remain in Canada beyond any temporary status granted.” [ 9 ] On November 21, 2024, the Applicant filed this application seeking judicial review of the Decision.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 10 ] The parties submit that the applicable standard of review of the merits of the Decision is that of reasonableness as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paragraphs 16-17 [ [RESPONDENT] ]. [ADDRESS] must consider both the rationale and outcome of the Decision and assess its reasonableness considering the history and context of the proceedings in which they were rendered ( [NAME] at paras 83, 94). A reasonable decision is one based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is transparent, intelligible and justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker ( [APPELLANT] at paras 85, 99).

IV. Analysis [ 11 ] The Applicant has raised a number of errors in the Decision, each of which he says renders it unreasonable. I find that it is sufficient to dispose of this application in light of two errors which relate to the Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s evidence of the push factors upon which the Decision is based and which cumulatively give this Court reason to doubt the reasonableness of the overall Decision. A. Error in assessing the Applicant’s familial ties to Pakistan [ 12 ] First, the Applicant submits that the Officer made significant errors in assessing the Applicant’s family ties in Pakistan. [ 13 ] The Applicant takes issue with the following portion of the [NAME] notes related to his wife: With respect to family ties, the [NAME] notes indicate the following: [NAME] application form declares one adult son in [NAME] and one adult dtr in Pakistan. Spouse wife declared as nonaccompanying. [NAME]’s wife as per application form AKHTAR, [NAME]: 58945390 DoB: 1960/07/14 obtained PG-1 TRV (V401171343 exp: 2033/01/09) application received 2023/03/09 / approved 2023/08/08 declaring [NAME] [NAME] as non-accompanying. Noted wife prev TRV refusals prior to recent approval. [NAME] [NAME]’s application received 2023/09/28, the following month after his wife obtained TRV, and also declared his wife as non-accompanying. It appears that both the [NAME] and his spouse applied separately and declared each other as non-accompanying on their respective application submissions in order to bolster their respective familial ties in their home country. [ 14 ] The Applicant suggests that the Officer improperly speculated about the reason for the Applicant and his wife having applied separately. He suggests that it is “equally as likely that they declared each other as non-accompanying due to legitimate reasons they may have had for travelling separately.” [ 15 ] I agree that the record provides no basis for the Officer’s dismissive treatment of this important family tie to Pakistan. In fact, counsel for both parties acknowledged that the wife’s referenced visa is a “super visa,” which differentiates her ability to visit Canada, and which bears on the Officer’s consideration of the reason that she applied separately from her husband. I find the Officer’s basis for discounting the Applicant’s wife as a familial tie to Pakistan to fall on the side of impermissible speculation as opposed to a reasonable inference ( [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]), 2025 FC 1943 at para 17). [ 16 ] The Applicant also points to the following excerpt from the [NAME] notes which relates to another family member in Pakistan: I reviewed representative’s multi-document submission totalling 27+12+17 pages. It is not clear why the representative provided a copy of a passport biopage for a Mrs. [NAME]: 1948/05/14, nor is it clear who Mrs. [APPELLANT] is in relation to the [NAME]. [ 17 ] The Applicant points out that [COUNSEL] was identified in his counsel’s submission letter and he included a copy of her Pakistani passport on which counsel wrote, “Applicant’s sister – living in Karachi, Pakistan.” The Applicant submits that the Officer overlooked this document and therefore failed to consider another family tie to Pakistan (citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2021 FC 760 at paras 34-35 [ [RESPONDENT] ]). [ 18 ] The Respondent concedes that the Officer failed to identify the woman as the Applicant’s sister but suggests that there is no indication that this would have impacted the Decision since without any information about the nature of the relationship, the mere identification of the woman as a sibling is insufficient to make out a strong family tie that could impact the Officer’s analysis (citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 175 at para 25 [ [RESPONDENT] ]). This argument as to why this omitted evidence is not significant and can be discounted, might have carried weight had it been given by the Officer; however, it cannot be read into the Decision to justify the Officer’s failure to account for evidence that bore on a key consideration ( [APPELLANT] at para 97). [APPELLANT]. Error in assessing the Applicant’s economic ties to Pakistan [ 19 ] Second, in considering the Applicant’s economic ties to Pakistan, the Officer focused on the Applicant’s bank statements which demonstrated “limited and declining funds,” while ignoring evidence related to the Applicant’s ownership of a property in Pakistan. [ 20 ] Again, the Respondent submits that the Officer’s failure to mention the Applicant’s property in Pakistan is understandable as the Applicant provided no evidence of its significance so as to incentivize the Applicant to return to it. This is not completely accurate as the record includes a Sale Deed that describes the property in Pakistan as a leasehold residential flat purchased by the Applicant and valued at Rs. 26,10,000 as of April 2022. Given the Applicant’s position as a retiree and the Officer’s view that the Applicant had insufficient economic ties to Pakistan, the Applicant’s property in Pakistan takes on greater significance as it is not only relevant to the Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s financial ties to Pakistan, but pointed to a different conclusion from that reached by the Officer ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship [RESPONDENT]) , [1998] FCJ No 1425 (QL) at para 15). This evidence should therefore have been addressed, with any failure on the part of the Applicant to explain the significance of the property going to its weight ( [NAME] at paras 25-26). C. The cumulative impact of the Officer’s errors [ 21 ] The Officer’s reasons reflect a failure to account for evidence that bore on the Officer’s assessment of the very push factors cited as the basis for the Decision ( [NAME] at paras 105, 126). This failure causes this Court to doubt the Officer’s consideration of the “constellation of evidence,” and by extension, the reasonableness of the overall Decision ( [NAME] at paras 34-35, [NAME] at para 126).

V. Conclusion [ 22 ] As the Decision has been shown to be unreasonable, this application is granted. [ 23 ] No question of certification was raised by either party. I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-22242-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted and the decision dated October 28, 2024, is set aside; The matter shall be remitted for redetermination by a different officer; and There is no question for certification. Blank “Allyson Whyte Nowak” blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-22242-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: WINNIPEG, MANITOBA DATE OF HEARING: MAY 20, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: WHYTE NOWAK J. DATED: MAY 27, 2026 APPEARANCES : [APPELLANT] FOR THE APPLICANT [APPELLANT] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] [RESPONDENT] Lawyers Barristers and Solicitors Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR THE RESPONDENT