This was a judicial review of a decision of an immigration officer (the “Officer”) who refused the Applicants’ (individually referred to as the “Applicant”, and together the “Applicants”) temporary resident visa (the “TRV”). The Applicants were a mother and daughter, both citizens of Guyana. The decision was made based on subsection 216(1) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Regulation or IRPR, that the applicants would not leave Canada at the end of their stay.

Since both decisions were focused on the mother’s circumstances, the two applications were treated as one. According to Justice Phelan: “[d]espite the Applicant’s further submissions, there are no relevant issues related to the best interests of child.”

The Applicant mother applied to visit her boyfriend, the child’s father, for one week in Niagara Falls. The boyfriend is a permanent resident of Canada. The mother had two previous TRV applications and both have been denied.

[4] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] Notes state “… not satisfied with strong pull factor to Cda PA has demonstrated sufficient ties to Guy to compel their return. PA has travelled to US in the past and remained 6mths demonstrating an ability to remain outside of Guy …”.

[5] The Officer’s refusal letter states that the Officer was not satisfied the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of the proposed stay based on:

  • travel history;
  • family ties in Canada and in the country of residence;
  • purpose of the visit;
  • current employment situation; and
  • personal assets and financial status.

Justice Phelan stated: [6] As made clear in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], the standard of review is reasonableness in the context of a deferential but robust form of review. The Court is to look at the reasoning, the process and outcomes. There must be an internally consistent and rational chain of analysis and the decision must be justified in relation to the facts and law relevant to the matter.

The same was also confirmed in the decision of Aghaalikhani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1080 Federal Court — Canada (Federal)2019-08-16 argued by Samin Mortazavi, Canadian Barrister and Solicitor.

[9] In summary, the Officer seems to have found that the Applicant was prepared to abandon her job in Guyana, her widowed father and her friends in Guyana in favour of her Canadian resident boyfriend. However, the Officer does not explain why she reached that conclusion.

In paragraph 11, Justice Phelan emphasized the importance of a rational connection between the Officer’s conclusions and the GCMS Notes and refusal letter. For those reasons, Justice Phelan granted the application for leave. Justice Phelan further stated that the Officer should have issued the TRV to the two Applicants.


Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published.