Nomiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1876 : Visitor Visa Refusal Set Aside After Officer Fails to Engage with Evidence of Family, Business, and Property Ties

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Dr. Hadi Nomiri’s visitor visa application. The Iranian veterinarian planned a ten-day trip to Canada during the Persian New Year holidays. The officer questioned the source and availability of his funds and concluded that his financial circumstances and travel purpose were inconsistent with a temporary stay. The Court accepted that concerns about the applicant’s fluctuating bank balances were reasonable. However, it granted judicial review because the officer failed to address substantial evidence of his family, business, and property ties to Iran.

Key Principle

An officer may reasonably question unexplained lump-sum deposits, fluctuating bank balances, and unsupported claims that travel expenses have been prepaid. However, when assessing whether an applicant will leave Canada, the officer must also meaningfully address significant contrary evidence of establishment in the home country, including close family members, professional responsibilities, business ownership, caregiving obligations, and property. A refusal is unreasonable where strong evidence supporting return is ignored.

Background

The applicant was a veterinarian who owned and supervised a veterinary hospital in Iran. His spouse, child, and parents all remained there, and he stated that he cared for his parents.

He also owned three residential properties in Iran and claimed rental income from them.

The applicant planned to visit Canada from March 18 to March 28, 2024. He provided details of a tour, flights, and accommodation.

The officer found that his assets and financial circumstances were insufficient to support the trip. The officer also questioned whether the purpose of travel was consistent with a temporary stay and found his travel history limited.

The applicant claimed that his bank account maintained approximately $39,000 over six months. The record instead showed significant fluctuations, including balances falling from approximately $4,720 to $2.50 before increasing to about $39,000.

Court Findings

• Financial Concerns Were Reasonable
The Court held that the officer was entitled to question the unexplained lump-sum deposits and significant fluctuations in the applicant’s bank accounts. In the absence of adequate documentation establishing the source and availability of the funds, these financial concerns were reasonably supported by the record.

• Prepaid Travel Expenses Were Not Proven
The applicant asserted that he had prepaid his tour, flights, and accommodation, but the Court noted that no invoices or proof of payment had been provided. The officer therefore reasonably concluded that it had not been established whether those funds would actually be available for the proposed trip.

• Strong Home-Country Ties Were Overlooked
The Court found that the officer failed to meaningfully consider evidence that the applicant’s spouse, child, parents, veterinary business, and residential properties all remained in Iran. These factors were important indicators of establishment and provided significant incentives for the applicant to return after his visit.

• Departure Finding Was Unreasonable
Although the officer’s financial concerns were justified, the conclusion that the applicant would not leave Canada was not. By failing to engage with substantial evidence supporting the applicant’s return to Iran, the decision lacked the transparency and justification required by Vavilov.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred
The Court rejected the applicant’s procedural fairness argument, holding that a visa officer is not required to seek clarification or request additional financial evidence before refusing an application. The responsibility remained on the applicant to submit a complete application with sufficient supporting documentation.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the visitor visa application to a different officer for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Nomiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1876 (CanLII)