Persaud v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1252 : Court Finds TRV Refusal Unreasonable Where Travel History, Family Ties and Employment Concerns Were Not Explained

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Temporary Resident Visa applications by Deoranie Persaud and her daughter, both citizens of Guyana. Ms. Persaud planned a one-week visit to Niagara Falls to see her boyfriend, the child’s father and a Canadian permanent resident. The officer was not satisfied that the applicants would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. The Court granted judicial review because the refusal listed several negative factors without explaining how they supported a finding that Ms. Persaud would overstay.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that TRV reasons may be brief, but they must disclose a rational connection between the evidence and the refusal. An officer cannot simply identify travel history, family ties, employment, purpose of visit, or finances as negative factors without explaining why they support the conclusion that an applicant will not leave Canada.

Background

Ms. Persaud applied to visit her boyfriend in Canada for one week with her daughter. Her boyfriend, the child’s father, was a permanent resident of Canada. She had previously been refused two TRVs.

The refusal letter stated that the officer was not satisfied she would leave Canada based on her travel history, family ties in Canada and Guyana, purpose of visit, employment, and personal assets and financial status.

The GCMS notes stated that the officer was not satisfied that Ms. Persaud had sufficient ties to Guyana to compel her return and noted that she had previously remained in the United States for six months. The officer viewed her Canadian boyfriend as a strong pull factor toward Canada.

Court Findings

• Travel History Did Not Support the Negative Finding

The Court found that the officer did not explain why Ms. Persaud’s travel history suggested that she would overstay in Canada. Her past travel showed no overstays or immigration violations. The fact that she had previously remained in the United States for six months did not, without further explanation, reasonably support an adverse conclusion about temporary intent.

• Family, Employment and Purpose Concerns Were Not Explained

The officer appeared to conclude that Ms. Persaud might abandon her employment, widowed father, and friends in Guyana to remain with her boyfriend in Canada. However, the reasons did not explain why the evidence supported that conclusion. The same problem affected the officer’s reliance on the purpose of visit, employment, and financial circumstances.

• Refusal Grounds Were Conclusions Rather Than Reasons

The Court held that simply listing refusal factors was insufficient. Although visa officers are not required to write extensive reasons, there must be enough analysis to understand how the evidence led to the conclusion. The GCMS notes did not provide the missing explanation, leaving no rational connection between the evidence and the refusal.

 Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review. The Court stated that the officer should have issued the TRV, although the original travel period had passed. Ms. Persaud could submit a new TRV application, which could not be decided by any officer involved in her previous refusals, and those refusals were not to be treated as relevant. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Persaud v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1252 (CanLII)