Khaleel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1385 : TRV Refusal Upheld Where Applicant’s Temporary Status Raised Return Concerns

The Federal Court reviewed Muhammad Khaleel’s TRV refusal for an exploratory visit required by the British Columbia Entrepreneur Immigration Regional Pilot. The officer was not satisfied he would leave Canada after the visit, relying on purpose of visit, temporary status and employment in Saudi Arabia, and immigration history. The Court found the decision reasonable.

Key Principle

A TRV officer may assess temporary intent using immigration history, employment stability, third-country status, and general local conditions. Officers may rely on publicly available country information without prior notice, and judicial review does not permit reweighing evidence merely because positive evidence could support another conclusion.

Background

The applicant, a Pakistani citizen working temporarily in Saudi Arabia, was invited to Quesnel for an exploratory visit and interview connected to his entrepreneur nomination application. He proposed a short visit and disclosed substantial funds. His wife and children remained in Pakistan, while he had worked in Saudi Arabia since 2016.

Court Findings

• Saudization Concerns Were Reasonably Considered

The officer noted that Saudi Arabia’s Saudization policies prioritized citizens over foreign workers and that pandemic-related labour changes increased pressure on the foreign workforce. The employer’s letter showing increased bakery demand did not answer the broader concern that the applicant’s continued employment depended on temporary foreign-worker status within that policy environment.

• Officer Did Not Ignore Applicant’s Employment Role

The applicant argued that the officer overlooked his operational responsibilities. The GCMS notes described him as a senior manager in sales and operations. The Court found that his duties did not alter the concern about employment instability arising from foreign-worker status.

• Purpose of Visit Was Acknowledged and Weighed

The officer expressly recognized that the visit was for an exploratory trip and interview connected to the entrepreneur program. The Court rejected the argument that supporting correspondence was ignored. Decision-makers need not mention every document when the central purpose is understood.

• Immigration History Supported Compliance Concerns

The applicant’s history included a refused refugee claim, removal to Pakistan, a later attempt to return using a cancelled TRV that resulted in another removal and exclusion order, and subsequent TRV refusals. The officer could reasonably treat this history as relevant to whether he was a bona fide temporary visitor likely to comply with conditions.

• Family Ties Did Not Compel a Different Result

The officer was aware that the applicant’s spouse and children lived in Pakistan. However, he had lived separately in Saudi Arabia for years, and the Court held that the strength of those ties was a factual matter entitled to deference. Their existence did not make the overall temporary-intent assessment unreasonable.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach from Country Information

The applicant argued that reliance on Saudization and economic conditions was extrinsic evidence requiring notice. The Court disagreed. TRV applicants receive a relatively low level of procedural fairness, and officers may use general knowledge of local conditions and public information when assessing temporary intent. The applicant could reasonably have anticipated scrutiny of his temporary status and employment stability.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. The officer’s assessment of employment prospects, purpose of visit, family ties, immigration history, and local conditions was justified, intelligible, and transparent. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

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