Mirrajaby v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1395 : Visitor Visa Decisions Overturned After IRCC Failed to Explain Why Applicants’ Finances Were Insufficient

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of temporary resident visa (TRV) applications submitted by Ziba Mirrajaby and her son, Amirali Sharifi Rasteh Kenari. The applicants intended to visit Ms. Mirrajaby’s husband in Canada for two weeks. The officer refused the applications, finding that the applicants lacked sufficient financial resources and that their visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer relied on boilerplate reasoning and failed to explain why the applicants’ financial evidence was insufficient.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that visa officers may use brief or standardized reasons, but those reasons must still provide a transparent, intelligible, and justified explanation based on the applicant’s specific circumstances. Boilerplate statements are insufficient when they fail to engage with important evidence supporting the application.

Background

The applicants, citizens of Iran, applied for TRVs in July 2024 to visit Ms. Mirrajaby’s husband, who was working in Canada on an open work permit. The planned visit was for two weeks in August 2024.

The applicants submitted financial information and supporting documents demonstrating their ability to support the visit. However, IRCC refused both applications on July 31, 2024.

The officer’s GCMS notes stated that:

• The applicants’ assets and financial situation were insufficient to support the purpose of travel.
• The purpose of the visit was not consistent with a temporary stay.
• The husband in Canada was not sufficiently established to support family members because he obtained his open work permit under a temporary public policy.

Court Findings

• Financial Assessment Lacked Explanation

The Court found that the officer failed to explain why the applicants’ financial evidence was insufficient. The reasons only repeated that their assets were inadequate without analyzing the specific financial information submitted.

Justice Norris held that given the detailed financial documents provided and the short two-week visit planned, the officer was required to provide some explanation showing how the conclusion was reached.

• Boilerplate Reasons Were Insufficient

The Court noted that template language is not automatically unreasonable. However, reasons must still demonstrate engagement with the applicant’s individual circumstances.

In this case, the officer’s reasons did not explain why the applicants’ financial situation, travel purpose, or host’s circumstances justified refusal.

• Procedural Fairness Issue Not Addressed

Because the Court found the decisions unreasonable, it was unnecessary to consider the applicants’ separate procedural fairness arguments.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and set aside the July 31, 2024 TRV refusals. The Court did not order reconsideration of the original applications because the planned travel dates had passed. If the applicants submit new TRV applications, they must be considered by a different decision-maker. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Mirrajaby v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1395 (CanLII)