January
RAYKEL RODRIGUEZ ZAMBRANO // IMM-2427-22 2023 FC 1583 // November 27, 2023
In 2023, Raykel Rodriguez Zambrano, a Venezuelan citizen, applied for a visa to visit Canada, which was refused. The Officer cited that the Applicant was “not sufficiently established” in Venezuela despite a thirty-three-year marriage and two children. Justice Ahmed found this conclusion unjustified and lacking transparency.
The Officer’s rejection of the Applicant’s financial status and travel history was also deemed unreasonable. The Applicant provided banking information and proof of funds, but the Officer did not justify why this was insufficient. The Officer’s stereotyping of family dynamics and dismissal of the Applicant’s travel history to the Dominican Republic were criticized.
The Court concluded that the Officer’s decision lacked specific reasoning and was unreasonable. Consequently, the application was allowed.
NEDA AGHAEI KHORASGANI // IMM-9300-22 2023 FC 1581 // November 27, 2023
In 2023, Neda Aghaei Khorasgani, an Iranian citizen, applied for a study permit to pursue a degree in aviation safety in Canada. The Officer refused the permit, citing insufficient ties to Iran and questioning the relevance of the proposed studies.
The Officer concluded that the Applicant had insufficient ties to Iran because she was unmarried, mobile, and had no dependents, failing to consider her family and economic ties in Iran. These factors alone cannot justify denying a study permit without further analysis.
The Officer also questioned the alignment of the proposed studies with the Applicant’s background. However, the Applicant explained her desire to advance her career in aviation safety and the significance of studying in Canada.
The Court concluded that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable and allowed the application. #7
ARFAT ALMADANI MOHAMMED // IMM-12108-22 2023 FC 1703 // December 15, 2023
In 2023, Arfat Almadani Mohammed applied for an open work permit (OWP) after his status in Canada had expired. The Officer refused the application, stating that Mr. Mohammed did not have implied status or authorization while his restoration application was pending.
Justice Pallotta noted that while Mr. Mohammed did not have implied status, he was entitled to apply for an OWP under subsection 199(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) while his restoration application was pending. The Officer’s refusal lacked intelligibility and proper explanation, as required by the Vavilov decision, and did not address the correct legislative interpretation.
The Court concluded that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable and must be set aside. Consequently, the application was allowed.
MARLOU FERRERA // IMM-7280-22 2023 FC 1717 // December 18, 2023
In 2023, Marlou Ferrera’s application was refused by an Officer who claimed she posed a risk to Canadian society and had a pattern of non-compliance with immigration laws. Justice Pentney reviewed the case and found the decision was based on a mischaracterization of the evidence.
The Officer incorrectly stated that Ferrera disregarded Canadian immigration laws for a year after her temporary status expired. In reality, she consulted Counsel just two days after her application refusals and took steps to regularize her status. This error led the Officer to unfairly describe her as having demonstrated “complete disregard” for immigration laws.
Justice Pentney noted that the mistake regarding the dates was significant and unduly negative, as Ferrera was actively trying to regain status. This wrongful characterization likely influenced the Officer’s overall analysis of Ferrera’s case.
The Court concluded that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable due to this error and its prejudicial impact. Consequently, the application was allowed.
VAHAN KHOSROFYAN // IMM-6763-22 2023 FC 1586 // November 28, 2023
In 2023, Vahan Khosrofyan’s visa application was refused by a Visa Officer, who determined that he failed to show an intent to reside in Quebec, as required by the regulations.
Mr. Khosrofyan challenged the Officer’s reliance on his 2015 Express Entry application, which indicated an intent to reside in Alberta. The Officer failed to recognize that plans can change, treating this as an insurmountable obstacle.
The Officer also questioned Mr. Khosrofyan’s French language ability, noting that he began lessons only when asked for evidence of his intent to reside in Quebec. Justice Grammond disagreed with the imposition of a French proficiency requirement not found in the regulations, noting that Mr. Khosrofyan had been self-learning French for two and a half years and his daughter had been studying French at school.
Additionally, the Officer discounted the support offered by Mr. Khosrofyan’s wife’s aunt, who lives in Laval, based solely on the lack of in-person visits. The Officer failed to consider the aunt’s detailed letter explaining this absence.
Justice Grammond concluded that the Visa Officer’s decision was unreasonable due to these oversights and mischaracterizations. Consequently, the application was allowed.
JENNIFER WOPHILL // IMM-11836-22 2023 FC 1618 // December 1, 2023
In 2023, Jennifer Wophill’s reconsideration request for her permanent residence application was refused.
Ms. Wophill argued that the new evidence she submitted was compelling and addressed the deficiencies in her original application, making the Officer’s refusal unreasonable. Justice Southcott explained that the reconsideration process involves two steps: first, deciding whether to exercise discretion to reconsider the previous decision, and second, conducting the actual reconsideration if the decision to reconsider is made.
The Officer did not move beyond the first step, which means there was no obligation to conduct a substantive analysis of the new evidence. The Applicant must show that reconsideration is warranted in the interests of justice or due to unusual circumstances, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The Court concluded that the Officer’s decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.
March
ADEDAMOLA ADENIRAN // IMM-12199-22 2024 FC 229 // February 12, 2024
In 2024, Adedamola Adeniran’s application for a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) was refused by a Visa Officer.
Mr. Adeniran’s transcript from York University showed full-time enrollment during the Fall/Winter academic sessions from 2018 to 2020, and part-time enrollment in the Fall/Winter 2021 session. The Visa Officer rejected his application, stating that he was part-time in Fall 2021 and did not meet the full-time enrollment requirement for a PGWP.
The Minister argued that “academic session” in the program delivery instructions referred to a four-month term, and Mr. Adeniran’s part-time status in his final session was unclear. However,
Justice McHaffie noted that the Visa Officer’s decision did not consider the “final academic session” exception, which allows part-time status in the last academic session.
The Court concluded that the Visa Officer’s reasoning overlooked this exception and failed to demonstrate the justification, transparency, and intelligibility required for a reasonable decision. Consequently, the application was allowed.
NATACHA NOEL ST-VALIERE // IMM-12339-22 2024 CF 149 // January 30, 2024
In 2024, Natacha Noel St-Valiere’s application for a permanent resident card was refused for allegedly missing an identity document. She provided documents from the IRCC website indicating that a specific declaration form was only required under certain conditions, which did not apply to her. Thus, she correctly used the declaration section of the application.
The decision focused on the missing identity document without addressing if she met the requirements of paragraph 178(1)b). The IRCC did not inform her of any additional missing information. The Court found the decision unreasonable due to the lack of proper explanation and notification. Consequently, the application was allowed.
February
PINGNI SHAO ET. AL. // IMM-13224-22 2024 FC 281 // February 21, 2024
In 2024, Pingni Shao and others challenged a decision regarding Mr. Zhang’s conviction for embezzlement in China.
The Applicants argued that the Officer misapplied the equivalency analysis from Hill v. M.E.I. by not identifying the essential elements of the Chinese offence or considering Mr. Zhang’s subjective belief. The Officer focused only on whether a reasonable person would share Mr. Zhang’s belief, not if he genuinely held it.
The Court concluded the Officer’s decision was unreasonable and allowed the application.
THOMAS B. WINKLER // T-183-22 2024 FC 247 // February 14, 2024
In 2024, Thomas B. Winkler challenged a decision regarding a contravention of the Customs Act.
On September 7, 2020, Mr. Winkler’s vehicle was intercepted by the RCMP after “running the border” at the Fraser Port-of-Entry between Alaska and British Columbia. He was fined $1,000 for not presenting himself to border officials. Mr. Winkler claimed he stopped and waited but found no CBSA Officer due to construction at the POE.
Mr. Winkler mentioned having dash-cam footage but did not provide it to the Officer or the Minister. The Minister reduced the fine, considering the construction’s impact on Mr. Winkler’s ability to comply, and provided clear reasons for the decision.
The Court concluded that the Minister’s decision was justified and transparent. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
April
NAZANIN JAHANIAN ET. AL. // IMM-983-23 2024 FC 581 // April 12, 2024
In 2024, Nazanin Jahanian submitted financial documents as part of their application
process to demonstrate their available financial resources. The Officer in charge of
reviewing the application doubted the veracity of these financial documents, stating they
did not accurately reflect the applicants’ legitimate financial resources. However, the
Officer failed to inform the applicants of these concerns or give them an opportunity to
respond.
The Officer’s failure to alert the applicants to the concerns and provide them with a fair
opportunity to respond was deemed a significant procedural error.
Consequently, the Court ruled that the decision by the Officer was unreasonable and
allowed the application.
WANDERSON FREITAS // IMM-2021-24 2024 FC 608 // April 22, 2024
In 2024, the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) sought to declare Wanderson
Freitas inadmissible to Canada. The CBSA, acting as the Minister’s delegated authority,
has a duty to make reasonable inquiries with other Crown agencies, such as the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), to obtain all relevant records for the inadmissibility
hearing. The Officer failed to disclose to Mr. Freitas’ counsel that they had not made
reasonable inquiries to obtain potentially exculpatory records from the RCMP.
The Immigration Division (ID) misinterpreted the legal framework that governs the
relationship between the Minister, the CBSA, and the RCMP, resulting in an
unreasonable decision. The Court emphasized that the CBSA must actively seek out and
disclose all relevant records from the RCMP. If the CBSA is denied access to these
records, it must inform Mr. Freitas’ counsel, allowing them to take appropriate legal
actions.
The Court ruled that the Minister’s application is allowed.
THANH DUY NGUYEN // IMM-11616-22 2024 FC 609 // April 23, 2024
In 2024, Thanh Duy Nguyen, a student from Vietnam, applied for permanent residence in
Canada under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada Class after marrying his
sponsor. The Officer reviewing the application doubted the cohabitation of Nguyen and
his spouse, citing concerns with bank statements showing transactions far from the
claimed residence. Despite the applicant providing additional supporting documents,
including a lease agreement, tax documents, and statements from the sponsor’s mother,
the Officer concluded that the only objective proof of cohabitation was the applicant’s
cell phone bill.
The Officer failed to acknowledge the initial lease agreement from April 2021, signed by
Nguyen, the sponsor, and her mother, which was relevant and represented objective
evidence of cohabitation. Instead, the Officer focused on a lease renewal from March
2022, disregarding the original lease without providing reasons for this decision. This
omission was critical, as the original lease could have supported Nguyen’s claim of
cohabitation.
The Court found that the Officer’s failure to consider the initial lease agreement and
provide reasons for its disregard constituted a significant procedural error.
Due to this, the Court ruled that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable and allowed the
application.
May
SOPHIA AJDADI // IMM-3674-23 2024 FC 754 // May 17, 2024
In 2024, an individual from Iran, applied for a study permit to pursue the Big Data Analytics
program in Canada. The Officer reviewing the application refused the permit, citing insufficient
financial information to support the stated purpose of travel. The refusal letter and GCMS notes
included only a generic statement: “The Applicant’s assets and financial situation are insufficient
to support the stated purpose of travel for the Applicant.”
The Respondent’s counsel argued that the Applicant failed to provide the required six months of
bank account information, as outlined in the study permit checklist for applicants from Iran.
Additionally, the Respondent noted that the Applicant’s information about other financial
holdings lacked clarity on their liquidity. However, these points were not mentioned in the
Officer’s notes or decision letter.
Despite the Applicant providing proof of employment, pay stubs, an offer of promotion, current
bank account balance, the value of gold jewelry in a safety deposit box, and property ownership,
the Officer’s analysis remained generic.
Regarding the purpose of the visit, the Officer failed to address the Applicant’s specific and
detailed explanation for pursuing the program in Canada and why it could not be done in Iran.
The refusal letter did not engage with the Applicant’s rationale or her employer’s offer letter. The
Court noted that even a brief explanation of why these elements were insufficient would have
demonstrated proper engagement.
The Court concluded that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable due to the lack of specific
reasons addressing the Applicant’s financial capacity and the purpose of the visit. Consequently,
the application was allowed.
TAJINDER SINGH BHATIA // IMM-11668-22 2024 FC 698 // May 7, 2024
In 2024, Tajinder Singh Bhatia, an applicant from India, was denied a visa to Canada. The
Officer cited Bhatia’s Indian Income Tax Return (ITR) as “verified and confirmed fraudulent”
without providing further reasoning. The applicant was not given a chance to prove the ITR’s
genuineness.
The Officer ignored corroborating evidence, including a 20-year USA visa, frequent international
travel, business documentation, personal tax records, and bank statements, all indicating Bhatia’s
intention to leave Canada after his authorized stay.
The Court found the misrepresentation claim unsubstantiated due to the lack of specific evidence
and deemed the Officer’s decision unreasonable.
Consequently, the application was allowed.
THI QUYNH NHU NGUYEN // IMM-2181-23 2024 FC 790 // May 24, 2024
In 2024, the Applicant’s exclusion from the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada (SCLPC)
class depended on whether she and her partner, X, were continuously cohabiting since November
2019, including during a breakup from January to May 2021. The Officer concluded they were
not cohabiting, which excluded the Applicant from the SCLPC class.
The Court identified several issues with the Officer’s decision. First, The Officer did not conduct
a proper analysis to determine if the Applicant was cohabitating in the legal sense. The term
“cohabitating” was inconsistently applied throughout the case. Second, there was a lack of
intelligibility. The decision stated that the Applicant and X might have broken up between
January and May 2021, however, there was no documentary proof of this breakup. Additionally,
the Officer acknowledged documents supporting their cohabitation during the supposed breakup,
leading to conflicting conclusions. Third, The Officer’s findings were unclear on whether the
breakup period restarted the cohabitation clock, a key issue for the Applicant’s defence against
exclusion from the SCLPC class.
The Court emphasized that the Officer’s reasons must be clear and reflect the stakes involved,
especially given the severe consequences of the decision. Due to these deficiencies, the Court
deemed the Officer’s decision unreasonable and allowed the application.
June
MOHAMMADREZA NADIMIBARFOROUSHI ET. AL. // IMM-12237-22 2024 FC 986 // June 25, 2024
Mohammadreza Nadimibarforoushi’s application for a study permit was refused due to concerns about his financial resources. Justice Blackhawk found the decision unreasonable due to a lack of procedural fairness.
The Visa Officer questioned the credibility of the financial documents, including property documents from Iran, and concluded they did not reflect the Applicant’s legitimate financial resources. The Officer also noted the absence of a banking transaction history.
Justice Blackhawk stated that procedural fairness required the Officer to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to these credibility concerns, which was not done. The Court determined that the lack of opportunity to address these issues constituted a procedural fairness violation. Consequently, the application was allowed.
July
FATEMATOSSADAT SHENAS ET. AL. // IMM-7160-23 2024 FC 1086 // July 10, 2024
Fatematosadat Shenas’s visa application was initially refused due to a Visa Officer’s suspicion about a large increase in one of her bank accounts. She provided evidence showing that the funds came from a rent deposit and submitted additional bank accounts and income documents demonstrating sufficient funds to support her family for at least the first year in Canada.
The Minister argued that concerns about income stability were reasonable. However, Justice Battista found the refusal unreasonable because the Officer ignored the evidence of the deposit’s source and other financial information. The Court concluded that the concerns about her financial sufficiency were unjustified. Consequently, the application was allowed.
XIAOSHAN LIU // IMM-11947-23 2024 FC 1167 // July 24, 2024
Xiaoshan Liu’s open work permit application was refused due to alleged misrepresentation for not disclosing a 2014 assault charge in Whistler, B.C., which was later stayed. Liu explained that he mistakenly answered “No” to the question about past charges, believing he had never committed a crime since the charge was stayed. He claimed his omission was a careless oversight, not an attempt to mislead.Justice Norris noted that the Officer’s reasoning for rejecting Liu’s explanation was unclear and lacked transparency. The Officer found Liu’s response contradictory without providing a comprehensible rationale. The Court emphasized that an innocent mistake should have been properly considered, and the Officer’s decision did not meet the standards of reasonableness outlined in Vavilov. Consequently, the application was allowed.
YOUSEF SHAHRYARANBARDAN // IMM-11731-22 2024 FC 1314 // August 23, 2024
Yousef Shahryaranbardan’s application for a permit to work as a self-employed business owner
in Canada under the C-11 category was dismissed. Justice Sadrehashemi found the decision
reasonable. The Officer determined that Mr. Shahryaranbardan had not demonstrated sufficient English
language ability to perform the duties required for his business. The Court upheld this decision,
noting that under section 200(3)(a) of the IRPR, the Officer must be satisfied that an applicant
can perform the work sought, which can include the ability to communicate in the necessary
language. The application was dismissed as the Officer’s assessment of the applicant’s language ability was
found to be reasonable.
AMEER MANSOOR ABDOOL // IMM-7223-23 2024 FC 1172 // July 25, 2024
Ameer Mansoor Abdool’s application for a Canadian work permit was dismissed. Associate
Chief Justice Gagné found the decision reasonable. Abdool failed to disclose a 2020 interaction with U.S. Customs, where his visa was canceled, during his work permit application. He argued that he was told this cancellation would not affect future applications. However, transcripts showed he was found inadmissible and not forthcoming
during questioning. The Court agreed it was reasonable for the Visa Officer to find this information material to his
application and concluded that Abdool’s omission lacked credibility. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
MOHAMMAD SAAD // IMM-11051-23 2024 FC 1302 // August 22, 2024
Mohammad Saad’s application for restoration of status and a study permit extension was initially
rejected. Justice Grant found the decision unreasonable. Saad mistakenly failed to submit required documents before the deadline, leading to his rejection. After being informed by IRCC that his status was invalid, he promptly left Canada and returned to Bangladesh. The Officer’s decision lacked clarity, using vague, templated language
and failing to consider Saad’s belief that he was complying with immigration laws. Justice Grant found it unreasonable that the Officer did not consider Saad’s prompt departure as evidence of his intention to comply with immigration requirements. The Court concluded that the decision lacked a clear rationale, and the application was allowed.
MIRPOURIA ZARRABI // IMM-11311-23 2024 FC 1336 // August 28, 2024
Mirpouria Zarrabi’s application was initially refused due to a misclassification of his job duties.
Justice Diner found the decision unreasonable.
Zarrabi’s counsel argued that job classifications under the National Occupational Classification
(NOC) should focus on the actual duties performed rather than the job title. The Officer
classified Zarrabi’s role as NOC-6311 (Shift Supervisor), which did not align with his primary
duties as a barista (cashier) at Starbucks. Justice Diner ruled that the Officer’s failure to consider the substance of Zarrabi’s job functions, rather than just the title, and the lack of engagement with the evidence provided, constituted a reviewable error. The Court found the decision lacked transparency and proper justification.
Consequently, the application was allowed.
KUAN WEN LIU // IMM-11493-23 2024 FC 1257 // August 12, 2024
Kuan Wen Liu’s application for permanent residence was denied because the Visa Officer was
not satisfied he met the employment requirement. Justice Diner found this decision unreasonable.
Liu submitted a letter dated May 6, 2021, confirming his employment from December 2020 to
May 6, 2021, and a paystub for April 2021. His application was received on May 7, 2021. The
Officer rejected the application, noting the letter indicated his last day of work was May 6, 2021.
Justice Diner found that it was reasonable for the letter, dated the day before the application, to
reflect employment only up to that date. Although Liu did not provide an updated letter, he
submitted additional paystubs covering May through July 2021. The Court determined the
decision lacked sufficient consideration of this evidence. Consequently, the application was
allowed.
THUSYANTHAN SUTHAKAR // IMM-4694-23 2024 FC 1285 // August 19, 2024
Thusyanthan Suthakar’s application was reviewed, and Justice Fuhrer found the decision
unreasonable. The Officer placed significant weight on Suthakar’s “criminal history,” including charges that
were withdrawn. Justice Fuhrer ruled that, without additional evidence about the charges or
peace bonds, this finding was unjustified and warranted the Court’s intervention.
Consequently, the application was allowed.
TAREK ALSEDIK BENTAHER // IMM-4258-21 2024 FC 1187 // July 26, 2024
Tarek Alsedik Bentaher’s exclusion from refugee protection was challenged and reviewed by
Justice Fuhrer. Bentaher was excluded based on his alleged “knowing” contribution to crimes
against humanity committed by Libyan security forces against illegal migrants between 2008 and
2011.
Bentaher argued that recklessness is not enough to establish such a contribution. Justice Fuhrer
agreed, stating that recklessness does not meet the Supreme Court’s definition of a “knowing”
contribution under the Canadian test for complicity, as clarified in Ezokola v C.C.I. The RAD’s
conclusion that Bentaher’s actions amounted to a knowing contribution based on recklessness
was found unreasonable.
Justice Fuhrer departed from previous case law suggesting that “knowing” includes recklessness
and allowed the application.
