Sharifi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 99: Super Visa Refusal Unreasonable Due to Improper Assessment of Family Ties and Country Conditions

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a Parents and Grandparents Super Visa application submitted by two Afghan citizens seeking to visit their Canadian son, daughter-in-law, and grandchildren. The visa officer refused the application after finding that the applicants had not demonstrated that they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. The officer relied on concerns regarding the applicants’ limited personal funds, their significant family ties in Canada, and the socio-economic and political conditions in Afghanistan. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to meaningfully assess the evidence and relied on unreasonable reasoning regarding factors that were central to the Super Visa program.

Key Principle

A visa officer assessing a Super Visa application must consider the unique purpose and structure of the program when evaluating an applicant’s ties to Canada. Family connections in Canada cannot automatically be treated as a negative factor when the purpose of the Super Visa is specifically to facilitate visits between parents or grandparents and their Canadian children or grandchildren. Officers must also provide a personalized assessment of country conditions and explain how those conditions affect the individual applicant’s intention to leave Canada.

Background

The applicants, Habibullah Sharifi and Bibi Khurd Sharifi, applied for a Parents and Grandparents Super Visa to visit their Canadian son and his family, including their four grandchildren. Their first application was refused in June 2024. After the applicants commenced judicial review proceedings, the Minister agreed that the decision was unreasonable and the matter was returned for redetermination.

In December 2024, IRCC refused the application again. The officer was satisfied that the applicants’ Canadian sponsors had sufficient financial resources to support their stay in Canada. However, the officer was not satisfied that the applicants would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.

The officer relied on three factors: limited evidence of the applicants’ own funds to cover airfare and medical insurance, significant family ties in Canada, and the socio-economic and political environment in Afghanistan. The applicants challenged the refusal, arguing that the officer failed to properly consider the evidence and misunderstood the purpose of the Super Visa program.

Court Findings

· Failure to Properly Assess Applicants’ Financial Evidence

The Respondent conceded that the officer failed to consider relevant evidence regarding the applicants’ own financial resources. The Court agreed that this was unreasonable. The officer’s assessment did not properly engage with the financial evidence provided by the applicants.

· Improper Reliance on Family Ties in Canada

The Court found that the officer’s reliance on the applicants’ significant family ties in Canada was unreasonable. The Super Visa program exists specifically to allow parents and grandparents to visit their children and grandchildren who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

The Court held that it was illogical to treat the existence of children and grandchildren in Canada as a negative factor when those relationships are the basis for eligibility under the program. The officer failed to consider the special nature of the Super Visa and incorrectly treated a required eligibility factor as evidence against the applicants.

· Lack of Personalized Assessment of Afghanistan Conditions

The Court also found that the officer failed to explain how the socio-economic and political situation in Afghanistan affected the applicants’ specific circumstances. The officer referenced general country conditions but did not provide a rational connection between those conditions and the conclusion that the applicants would not return.

The Court emphasized that officers must conduct an individualized assessment and provide reasons showing a logical chain of analysis between the evidence and the decision.

· Remedy and Avoiding Repeated Judicial Reviews

The applicants requested that the Court directly order the issuance of Super Visas. The Court declined, explaining that indirect substitution is an exceptional remedy only available where there is only one reasonable outcome or returning the matter would serve no purpose.

Although the Court recognized concerns about repeated judicial reviews and reconsiderations, it found that updated evidence may be relevant due to the passage of time. The matter therefore needed to be reconsidered by a new decision-maker.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the December 5, 2024 refusal decision, and returned the matter to a different decision-maker for redetermination. The Court provided guidance regarding the errors in the previous decision to prevent repeated unreasonable refusals. No question was certified for appeal.

Case Citation: Sharifi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 99 (CanLII)