Kheradpazhooh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1097 : Decision Set Aside After Officer Overlooked Evidence Supporting Temporary Business Visit and Strong Ties to Iran

Iranian spouses Mitra Kheradpazhooh and Babak Ertefeai sought judicial review after their temporary resident visa applications were refused under paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR. They proposed a 15-day exploratory visit to British Columbia and Montréal to investigate business opportunities before potentially applying under the BC PNP Entrepreneur Immigration Program. The Federal Court found that the officer disregarded significant evidence supporting both their legitimate business purpose and their intention to return to Iran.

Key Principle

A temporary resident visa applicant does not need a compelling reason to visit Canada or a complete travel itinerary. Where a legitimate business purpose is supported by objective evidence, an officer must meaningfully consider that evidence together with the applicant’s family, employment, property, financial and travel ties abroad. A refusal may be unreasonable where substantial evidence directly contradicting the officer’s conclusion is ignored or arbitrarily disregarded.

Background

The applicants planned a short exploratory trip to Vancouver and Montréal before potentially pursuing permanent residence through British Columbia’s entrepreneur program. The husband had operated a family auto-parts distribution company since 1992, owned 33% of it and employed seven workers. Their two children, aged 15 and 20, remained in school in Iran.

They submitted extensive supporting evidence, including property valued at approximately CAD $705,000, bank assets of approximately CAD $65,000, company records and financial statements, prior travel records, and a detailed itinerary.

A Vancouver real estate agent confirmed plans to show them two businesses valued between $200,000 and $300,000. A Montréal lawyer also confirmed that he would provide legal assistance and introduce them to business and immigration professionals.

The officer nevertheless refused the applications, citing travel history, length of stay and purpose of visit, and concluded that their incentive to remain in Canada might outweigh their ties to Iran.

Court Findings

• Legitimate Business Purpose Was Supported by Concrete Evidence

The Court found that exploring businesses in British Columbia before submitting an entrepreneur immigration application was a legitimate purpose. The applicants had identified professional contacts, potential businesses and planned activities. An exploratory visit was also consistent with the provincial program, which awarded adaptability points for previous visits to British Columbia.

• Strong Family and Economic Ties Were Overlooked

The evidence demonstrated substantial connections to Iran. The applicants’ children remained there, they owned their residence and other real estate, and the husband managed a longstanding business in which he held a significant ownership interest. These facts directly contradicted the officer’s conclusion that their incentive to remain in Canada outweighed their ties to Iran. The Court held that relevant evidence pointing toward the opposite conclusion could not simply be ignored.

• Travel History and Length of Visit Were Unreasonably Characterized

The applicants had travelled to several countries, including Germany, the United Arab Emirates, Cyprus and Turkey, while the husband had additionally travelled to China, Thailand and Armenia. Some trips required visas. The Court also found it unreasonable for the officer to characterize the proposed two-week visit as an “extended period.” Considered together, the officer’s concerns did not reasonably support the refusal.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted both applications for judicial review, set aside the TRV refusals and returned the applications to a different officer for redetermination after allowing the applicants to update them. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Kheradpazhooh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1097 (CanLII)