The visa officers cannot base their decisions on a hunch and must be clear in their analysis of the evidence before them. The Officers cannot simply conclude that by travelling as a family unit, the Applicant’s “ties to their home country are weakened.” In the recent case of Vahdati, Strickland J., when confronted with a similar situation, found the Decision unreasonable. Vahdati v Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1083 at para 10
Jurisprudence has established that when assessing an applicant’s ties to their home country, an officer’s failure to mention the applicant’s family ties to their home country will render the decision unreasonable. Seyedsalehi v Canada (MCI), 2022 FC 1250 at para 9
While the onus is on the Applicant to provide sufficient evidence, the Officer did not justify why the evidence submitted was inadequate. Jurisprudence has established that relevant ties to an applicant’s home country are supportive evidence that the applicant would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for stay. Rodriguez Martinez v Canada (MCI), 2020 FC 293 at para 15
In the case of Balepo, Southcott J. recognized that, while it may be relevant to consider family members’ intention to accompany the Applicant, it is unreasonable to conclude that travelling as a family unit results in weakened remaining ties in their home country when there clearly remain. Balepo v Canada (MCI), 2016 FC 268 at paras 15-16
And if, still, the Officer focused on the immediate family member(s) travelling to Canada with the Applicant. In refusing the Applicant to travel with their family member(s), the Officer relied on a broad generalization. The generalization is that applicants travelling with family member(s) are less likely to adhere to the terms imposed upon them as temporary residents. The Officer’s generalization amounts to ade factorefusal of all applicants who intend to bring their immediate family with them despite Canadian law permitting them.
The SCC in Vavilov details that a decision’s internal rationality may be questioned if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false dilemmas, unfounded generalizations, or an absurd premise. While the written reasons given by an administrative body must not be assessed against a standard of perfection, the reviewing Court must nevertheless be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up.” The Applicant submits that the Officer’s reason for refusal is neither intelligible nor justified in light of the evidence provided in the Record. Vavilov, supra at paras 91, 96, 104
Where the officer’s reasoning process was flawed, even where the outcome itself may have been reasonable, a decision may be considered unreasonable and set aside by the Court on Judicial Review.
If the Officer provides no intelligible analysis, they ultimately render a Decision based on unreasonable and factually incorrect inferences in opposition to the evidence filed.
The refusal letter and the GCMS notes cannot simply mention the Officer’s concerns, yet do not justify such concerns and provide justifications which are contradicted by the evidence provided in the Applicant’s application. In similar cases, such a decision, even with a charitable interpretation, is neither intelligible nor reasonable when read in conjunction with the evidence provided in the Record.
The Applicant can make an application for Leave and Judicial Review. The Applicant can submit that the decision is a reviewable error as it did not meet the hallmarks of reasonableness: justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The Applicant’s submissions should not be considered as a treasure hunt for errors if the Officer made several significant and reviewable errors that are sufficiently central to the decision, then Such a decision is unreasonable!
Read more about