Federal Court Sets Aside Visa Denial for Lack of Reasoning

Date: 20260629 Docket: IMM-21610-24 Citation: 2026 FC 873 Ottawa, Ontario, June 29, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Favel BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] [NAME] [Principal Applicant or [NAME]], his wife, [NAME], and his two daughters, [NAME] and [NAME] (collectively, the “Applicants” ) seek judicial review of a visa officer’s [Officer] October 16, 2024, decision [Decision]. The Officer denied the Applicants’ temporary resident visa [TRV] applications. The Officer was concerned that the Applicants would not leave Canada at the end of their visit. [ 2 ] The Applicants say that the Decision is unreasonable. They say that the Officer did not consider all of their evidence and that the reasons do not show why the TRV applications were denied. [ 3 ] The Respondent submits that the Officer reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence before them. [ 4 ] I agree that the Decision is unreasonable. The reasons for the Decision do not permit a meaningful review of the Officer’s rationale for denying the TRV applications.

Accordingly, the Decision is not transparent nor intelligible. The application for judicial review is granted.

II. Background A. The Applicants [ 5 ] The [NAME] is an Iranian citizen who works as a tea and coffee wholesale supplier. The [NAME]’s parents live in Iran. He also has two sisters and two brothers who live in Iran. [ 6 ] [NAME] is also an Iranian citizen. She is unemployed. Her father is deceased, and her mother lives in Iran. She has three sisters and three brothers who live in Iran. [ 7 ] The [NAME]’s two daughters were 16 years old and 12 years old at the time of the hearing. Both daughters are students. [ 8 ] On August 20, 2024, the Applicants applied for TRVs to visit Banff, Calgary, Whistler, and Vancouver. They intended for their visit to last from March 18, 2025, to April 1, 2025. B. The Decision [ 9 ] On October 16, 2024, the Officer who processed the Applicants’ TRV applications sent each of them a letter informing them that their applications were denied. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicants would leave Canada at the end of their stay, which paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 requires. [ 10 ] The Officer’s letters indicated that they were concerned that the details in the Applicants’ TRV applications were not consistent with a temporary stay in Canada, that they did not have significant family ties outside Canada, and that their employment situation does not show they are established in their country of residence. For each of the Applicants’ TRV applications, the [NAME] notes stated: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. The applicant's current employment situation does not show that they are financially established in their country of residence. 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.

III. Issue and Standard of Review [ 11 ] The determinative issue is whether the Decision is reasonable. The other issues raised by the Applicants do not need to be addressed. [ 12 ] Reasonableness is a deferential, but robust, standard of review ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 12-13 [ Vavilov ]). The reviewing court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified ( Vavilov 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 decision-maker ( Vavilov at para 85). Whether a decision is reasonable depends on the relevant administrative setting, the record before the decision-maker, and the impact of the decision on those affected by its consequences ( Vavilov at paras 88-90, 94, 133-135). [ 13 ] 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. A reviewing court must refrain from reweighing evidence before the decision-maker, and it should not interfere with factual findings absent exceptional circumstances ( Vavilov at para 125). Flaws or shortcomings must be more than superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision, or a “minor misstep” ( Vavilov at para 100).

IV. Analysis [ 14 ] The Applicants say that it is an uncontroverted fact that they intended to travel to Canada for tourism and that the Officer did not state what inconsistency arose from the TRV applications. This means the Officer failed to consider and assess important information that was before them in the TRV applications, which is not reasonable ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 811 at para 46). The Officer also did not explain their determination regarding the [NAME]’s employment as a factor in the Decision, rendering it unintelligible. Moreover, the absence of reasons in this case showing how the Officer determined the Applicants will not leave Canada is also unreasonable. [ 15 ] The Respondent says that the Applicants want the Court to reweigh the evidence that the Officer considered. An officer is presumed to know the law and to have reviewed the TRV application records ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 793 at para 17 [ [NAME] ]). A visa applicant has a positive obligation to establish that they will leave at the end of their stay ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 872 at para 9).

Accordingly, the Decision is reasonable and there is no need to interfere with it. [ 16 ] After considering the record and submissions of the parties, I find that the Decision is unreasonable because it does not exhibit an acceptable level of transparency and intelligibility. Specifically, the Officer did not sufficiently demonstrate in their reasons how they determined that the Applicants would not leave Canada after the end of their trip. [ 17 ] I agree with the Respondent that officers are presumed to have considered the entire record before them unless the contrary is shown ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1876 at para 13; [NAME] at para 17). Moreover, the Officer explicitly said they considered the TRV application. [ 18 ] In [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 121 [ [NAME] ], Justice Pentney summarized key principles for judicial reviews of TRV applications (para 7): A reasonable decision must explain the result, in view of the law and the key facts. Vavilov seeks to reinforce a “culture of justification,” requiring the decision-maker to provide a logical explanation for the result and to be responsive to the parties’ submissions, but it also requires the context for decision-making to be taken into account. [NAME] face a deluge of applications, and their reasons do not need to be lengthy or detailed. While “boilerplate” language is not inherently unreasonable, reasons must show an actual engagement with the specific situation of the applicant: [redacted] The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Officer that they meet the requirements for a TRV, including that they will leave at the end of their authorized stay. [NAME] must consider the “push” and “pull” factors that could lead an Applicant to overstay their visa and stay in Canada, or that would encourage them to return to their home country. The decision must be assessed in light of the context for decision-making, including the high volume of applications to be processed and the nature of the interests involved. · It is not open to the Minister’s counsel or the Court to fashion their own reasons to buttress or supplement the Officer’s decision: see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 754 at para 6. [ 19 ] [ADDRESS] recently determined in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1584 [ [NAME] ] that an officer’s statement saying they weighed relevant factors followed by that officer’s conclusory statement about a TRV application is not sufficient to allow a court to assess how that officer grappled with push and pull factors (para 16). [ 20 ] Here, as in [NAME] , the Officer said they weighed and balanced the factors in the Applicants’ TRV applications but then, in a conclusory fashion, states that they are not satisfied the Applicants will leave Canada at the end of their anticipated visit. However, the Officer does not provide details regarding their concerns. The Applicants, in their TRV application, provided submissions in relation to their tourism itinerary, flight details to and from Canada, their family ties in Iran, and the nature of the [NAME]’s employment. However, it is impossible to determine what part of the Applicants’ TRV application are not consistent with a temporary visit. In applying the principles set out in [NAME] , I find the Decision is unintelligible.

V. Conclusion [ 21 ] The Decision is unreasonable. There is no way of understanding how the Officer reached their conclusion in this matter.

JUDGMENT in IMM-21610-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted; The Decision, dated October 16, 2024, is set aside and the matter is returned for redetermination by a different visa officer; There is no question for certification; and There is no order for costs. "Paul Favel" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-21610-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan DATE OF HEARING: April 30, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: FAVEL J. DATED: June 29, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The ApplicantS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], SK For The Applicants ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA SASKATOON, SK For The Respondent