|
Immigration - VISA. Marzban v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Marzban v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an immigration JR, here regarding a refusal of an "application for a temporary resident visa [TRV]" because "(t)he Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay":A. Legal Principles
[9] A number of legal principles have emerged from the numerous recent decisions of this Court on TRV applications. These include the following:. The administrative setting of TRV applications is relevant to the process of judicial review – TRV decisions must be made rapidly, and in high volume, and visa officers have only a minimal duty to give reasons: Amini v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 653 at para 4.
. However, a minimal duty should not be mistaken for no duty – a reasonable decision must explain the result, and be justified in light of the law and the key facts: Shirazi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 822 at para 14; Nesarzadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 568 at para 5.
. TRV decisions do not typically result in "“particularly harsh consequences for the affected individual”" – this reinforces the reality that TRV decisions need not be lengthy or detailed: Vavilov at para 133.
. The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy an officer that they meet applicable legal requirements, including that they will leave at the end of their authorized stay: Safarian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 775 at para 2.
. It is not open to the parties on judicial review to buttress or supplement the Officer’s decision, but at the same time, judicial review is not a treasure hunt for errors in the reasons actually provided by the Officer: Jafarkhani v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2024 FC 1633 at para 5; Vavilov at para 102. ....
[12] This evidence was highly relevant to the Officer’s analysis of the Applicant’s family ties, particularly in view of the fact that her only relative in Canada is a second cousin. Visa officer decisions attract deference. That said, the Officer’s failure to demonstrate any consideration of the Applicant’s family obligations in Iran, and the failure to provide any indication that these obligations were weighed against the presence of a relatively distant Canadian relative indicates a lack of adequate justification. Similar to the findings of my colleague Justice Zinn in Groohi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 837 at para 17, the Officer’s error in this case lay in failing to consider that the Applicant’s strongest family ties were in Iran, rather than in Canada.
[13] Further, while each case turns on its own facts, I note that in Akinremi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 723, my colleague Justice Tsimberis recently considered an application for judicial review, in which an officer similarly relied on the applicants’ family ties in Canada to reject a TRV application. Of note, in that case, the applicants had a daughter in Canada. Despite this objectively close family relationship, Justice Tsimberis granted the application because the visa officer made no mention of the applicants’ other family ties in their country of origin. In that case, as in this one, the crux of the problem was the lack of any weighing of the Applicant’s ties in Canada, with those abroad.
|
