Bisiriyu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 630 : Visitor Visa Decision Quashed Due to Unsupported Financial Assessment

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Mutiat Ojuolape Bisiriyu’s TRV application to visit her son and grandchildren in Canada for approximately one month. The officer questioned her finances, family ties, purpose of travel, and travel history. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to meaningfully assess evidence supporting the applicant’s financial capacity and substantial ties to her home country.

Key Principle

A TRV refusal must be justified against the complete evidentiary record. An officer cannot conclude that a short family visit is financially unreasonable or that Canadian family ties outweigh home-country ties without addressing evidence of available funds, financial sponsorship, business ownership, property, and close family remaining abroad. A lack of previous travel history should not, by itself, operate as a negative factor.

Background

The applicant was a widowed Nigerian citizen who sought to visit her son and his family in Canada. She stated that she had approximately $4,000 for the trip and that her son and daughter-in-law would provide additional support. She had operated a buying-and-selling business since 1984, owned a home and land, and had two daughters and grandchildren residing in Nigeria.

Court Findings

• Financial Finding Was Insufficiently Explained

The officer concluded that the applicant was not sufficiently financially established and that the trip was an unreasonable expense. However, the record included personal bank statements, proof of the son’s employment, his written pledge of support, and a proposed visit of only about one month. Although the financial evidence was not extensive, the Court found it unclear why the officer considered it insufficient.

• Strong Home-Country Family Ties Were Overlooked

The applicant’s only family ties in Canada were her son and his immediate family. By contrast, she had two daughters, grandchildren, a longstanding business, and property in Nigeria. The Court found that the officer failed to weigh this evidence before concluding that the applicant had stronger ties to Canada.

• Overall Evidence Favoured Departure From Canada

The Court found there was more evidence supporting the applicant’s intention to leave Canada than suggesting she would remain beyond her authorized stay. Her business, family, property, short proposed visit, and financial support all pointed toward temporary intent.

• Lack of Travel History Was Improperly Treated Negatively

The officer stated that the applicant’s travel history was insufficient to count as a positive factor. The Court found that the absence of previous travel should not itself be used as an express reason for refusal. At most, a lack of travel history may be neutral rather than evidence that an applicant will overstay.

• Reasons Contained an Internal Contradiction

The officer relied on the applicant’s supposedly strong family ties in Canada while also stating that no proof of the family relationship had been provided. The Court found these conclusions difficult to reconcile and characterized the reasoning as unintelligible.

• Procedural Fairness Arguments Were Rejected

The Court rejected the applicant’s separate procedural fairness arguments, including her claim of legitimate expectations arising from compliance with IRCC application guidelines. Following the guidelines did not guarantee approval, and there was no evidence of improper credibility findings or personal bias.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the TRV refusal, and remitted the application to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Bisiriyu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 630 (CanLII)