Khaleel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1385 : Federal Court Finds Visa Officer Reasonably Assessed the Purpose of an Exploratory Visit

The Federal Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a temporary resident visa (TRV) refusal. The applicant, a Pakistani citizen residing and working in Saudi Arabia (KSA), sought to travel to Canada for an exploratory visit required under the British Columbia Provincial Nominee Program (BC PNP) Entrepreneur Immigration–Regional Pilot. The visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, relying on his purpose of visit, temporary immigration status in KSA, employment prospects, and immigration history.

Justice Elliott found that the officer’s assessment was reasonable when the GCMS notes were read in light of the complete record. The Court also rejected the applicant’s procedural fairness argument concerning the officer’s reliance on general knowledge of Saudization policies and local economic conditions.

Key Principle

A TRV applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. A visa officer may assess the applicant’s employment, establishment, immigration history, purpose of travel, and ties to their country of residence. Officers may also rely on their general experience and knowledge of local conditions without necessarily providing applicants an opportunity to respond, particularly where those conditions are publicly available and reasonably foreseeable.

The Court emphasized that judicial review is not an opportunity to reweigh evidence. Where the officer’s reasons demonstrate a justified, intelligible and transparent assessment of the relevant factors, the Court must defer to the decision.

Background

The applicant was a Pakistani citizen living and working temporarily in KSA. He had been accepted into the first phase of the BC PNP Entrepreneur Immigration–Regional Pilot and was invited by Quesnel, British Columbia, to undertake an exploratory community visit, which was a requirement of the program. His proposed visit was from March 16 to April 5, 2020. He reported approximately $266,673 CAD in available funds and monthly income of approximately $1,686 CAD.

The officer ultimately refused the TRV because the applicant had not established that he would comply with the conditions of a temporary stay.

Court Findings

• Employment and Saudization: The applicant argued that the officer ignored his employer’s evidence that his employment had remained stable during COVID-19 and that the bakery had actually experienced increased demand. The Court rejected this argument. The officer’s concern was not the individual bakery’s performance but the nationwide Saudization policies aimed at replacing foreign workers with Saudi nationals. As a foreign worker with temporary status, the applicant remained subject to that broader employment uncertainty.

• Purpose of visit: Although the applicant argued that the officer failed to explain the purpose-of-visit concern, the Court found that the officer had acknowledged the exploratory visit and interview with the BC PNP. The officer assessed the purpose together with the applicant’s temporary employment, establishment and ties in KSA, immigration history and other circumstances. The applicant’s challenge effectively sought a reweighing of the evidence, which was not the Court’s role.

• Family ties and immigration history: The officer considered that the applicant’s wife and three children remained in Pakistan but was entitled to determine that these ties were not sufficiently strong, particularly given the applicant’s previous immigration history. The officer considered previous visa refusals, a refugee claim, removal from Canada, an exclusion order, and subsequent TRV refusals. In that context, the finding that the applicant was not a bona fide visitor was reasonable.

• Procedural fairness and extrinsic information: The Court held that the officer was entitled to rely on general knowledge and publicly available information concerning KSA’s Saudization policies. The applicant could reasonably anticipate concerns about the stability of employment for foreign workers with temporary status. No additional procedural fairness opportunity was required.

Outcome

The Federal Court found the officer’s decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Khaleel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1385 (CanLII)