Rehman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 805 : TRV Refusal Set Aside for Failing to Assess Dual Intent and Key Evidence of Family Ties

In Rehman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 805, the Federal Court considered the refusal of a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) application by an applicant seeking to enter Canada to write a mandatory Sprinkler Fitter certification examination. The Applicant openly intended to pursue permanent residence through the Federal Skilled Trades Program (FSTP). The Court found that the officer failed to properly assess this dual intent in the context of the Applicant’s short-term and long-term objectives and also failed to adequately consider evidence demonstrating his family ties outside Canada. The application for judicial review was therefore granted.

Key Principles

An intention to become a permanent resident does not prevent a foreign national from obtaining temporary resident status. Under IRPA s. 22(2), an applicant may have dual intent provided the officer is satisfied that the applicant will leave Canada at the end of the authorized temporary stay. The assessment must consider the applicant’s short-term and long-term goals together and reflect the full context in which the application is made.

An officer must also meaningfully consider evidence that supports an applicant’s ties outside Canada. Where an applicant lives and works in one country while immediate family members reside in another, the officer cannot rely solely on that separation without considering evidence demonstrating the continuing strength of those family relationships.

Background

The Applicant, Abdul Rehman, is a Pakistani citizen who had been living and working in Saudi Arabia since 2013. His wife and two young children resided in Pakistan. He had been pursuing certification as a Sprinkler Fitter and, in December 2023, was invited to write the required certification examination in British Columbia. The examination could only be completed in person in Canada.

Mr. Rehman applied for a TRV to travel to Canada from May 28 to June 3, 2024, specifically to write the examination. His initial application was refused based on concerns regarding his family ties outside Canada, the purpose of his visit, and whether he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. Following judicial review proceedings, IRCC agreed to reconsider the application. The reconsideration officer again refused the application, relying principally on his employment and living arrangements and his allegedly weak family ties outside Canada.

Court Findings

➢ Dual Intent Was Not Properly Considered

The Court found that the Applicant had been completely transparent about his long-term intention to immigrate to Canada through the FSTP. His immediate purpose in seeking the TRV—to complete the mandatory Sprinkler Fitter examination—was directly connected to that longer-term immigration objective. The Court held that the officer failed to consider these short- and long-term goals in the aggregate, as required when assessing dual intent under s. 22(2) of the IRPA.

➢ Family Ties Were Incompletely Assessed

The officer relied on the fact that Mr. Rehman lived in Saudi Arabia while his wife and children lived in Pakistan as evidence of weak family ties. The Court accepted that this circumstance could be relevant but found that the assessment was incomplete. The officer failed to consider Mr. Rehman’s lengthy return trips to Pakistan to visit his wife and children, as well as evidence that his family had visitor visas for Saudi Arabia and had travelled there. These facts were significant indicators of continuing family ties outside Canada.

➢ Context Must Be Considered as a Whole

The Court emphasized that a TRV decision must reflect the full context of the application. The officer’s brief reasons did not demonstrate that the Applicant’s complete circumstances—including his certification process, immigration objectives, employment, travel history, and family relationships—had been assessed collectively.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Rehman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 805 (CanLII)