Mfudi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1319 : Super Visa Judicial Review Dismissed Where Canadian Daughter Lacked Standing and Parents Failed to Meet Core Super Visa Requirements

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of parent and grandparent super visa applications submitted by the parents of a Canadian citizen.

The judicial review was brought by their daughter in Canada rather than by the parents themselves.

The Court held that the daughter did not have standing to challenge the refusal because she was not the person directly affected by the visa decision. The Court nevertheless considered the merits and found that the officer had reasonably refused the applications because several mandatory super visa requirements had not been satisfied.

Key Principle

A family member in Canada does not automatically have standing to judicially review the refusal of a relative’s temporary resident visa.

Under subsection 18.1(1) of the Federal Courts Act, an application for judicial review may be brought by a person who is directly affected by the decision.

In a visa refusal, the persons directly affected are ordinarily the visa applicants themselves. The fact that the refusal negatively affects relatives in Canada does not give those relatives standing to challenge the decision on the applicants’ behalf.

Background

The applicant’s parents, citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, applied for parent and grandparent super visas.

The officer refused the applications because the required super visa criteria had not been demonstrated. The officer also expressed concern that the parents would not leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.

Their Canadian daughter personally brought an application for judicial review and represented herself before the Federal Court.

The Court first considered whether she was legally entitled to bring the proceeding.

Court Findings

The Court held that she lacked standing.

The applicable test was whether the matter directly affected her rights, imposed legal obligations upon her, or otherwise prejudicially affected her directly.

Although the refusal undoubtedly had consequences for the daughter because her parents could not visit her in Canada, the visa decision directly affected her parents’ immigration rights, not hers.

Her name did not appear as an applicant on the super visa applications, and it was her parents who should have challenged the refusals.

The Court nevertheless considered the merits and found that the applications contained several significant deficiencies.

The daughter acknowledged that the wrong medical insurance documentation had been submitted. Only her father was insured, and the policy would not become effective until after the parents’ intended arrival.

The parents also submitted only the daughter’s employment information and did not provide her spouse’s employment evidence. The daughter accepted that her income alone did not meet the required minimum family income.

In addition, the parents failed to provide proof of the required immigration medical examination.

The record also indicated that they had not properly disclosed a previous visa refusal.

Taken together, these deficiencies were sufficient for the officer to conclude that the requirements for the super visa had not been met.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The daughter did not have standing to bring the application on behalf of her parents. In any event, the Court found that the officer had reasonably refused the super visa applications because the required insurance, income, medical examination, and disclosure requirements had not been properly satisfied.

Case Citation:

Mfudi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1319 CanLII