Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 50

Date: 20230112

Docket: IMM-9377-21

Citation: 2023 FC 50

Ottawa, Ontario, January 12, 2023

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

(Delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario on January 12, 2023)

[1] The applicants are citizens of India and reside in the United Arab Emirates [UAE]. Their application for visitor visas was denied because of their family ties in Canada and their temporary immigration status in the UAE. They are now seeking judicial review of this denial. Despite counsel’s able submissions, I am dismissing their application.

[2] A visa officer must balance several factors to determine whether an applicant will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. On judicial review, my role is not to assess the relevant factors myself or exercise the discretion anew, but simply to verify that the officer turned their mind to the relevant factors and gave them due consideration. Moreover, while visa officers must give reasons that allow the Court to understand the basis of their decisions, these reasons may be brief and need not refer to every piece of evidence.

[3] First, the applicants argue that the officer unreasonably put the emphasis on the applicants’ family ties in Canada, disregarding other factors pulling them towards the UAE. I disagree, because the applicants’ family ties in Canada are objectively significant and the officer balanced these ties and other considerations.

[4] Second, the applicants argue that the officer unreasonably considered their travel history as a negative factor. However, this is not what the officer said. In fact, the officer found that it was a neutral factor. Given that the travel history consists of two trips to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it was open to the officer to give little weight to this factor.

[5] Moreover, earlier in 2019, while they were still living in India, the applicants were refused a Canadian visitor visa. In that application, Mr. Sohaib Ahmed stated that he had “professional obligations he held in India that necessitated his return following his trip.” Yet, a few months later, he moved to the UAE. While this is not explicitly mentioned in the officer’s brief reasons, the officer is presumed to have considered this issue, as it was explicitly raised in the current visa application.

[6] The applicants’ most important argument is that the officer failed to give due consideration to the evidence of the family’s establishment in the UAE. The officer did not mention that Mr. Sohaib Ahmed owns a business in the UAE and has bought two residential properties that he intends to rent. The officer rather mentioned the fact that their immigration status in the UAE is temporary, “which reduces their ties to that country.”

[7] A review of the record, however, shows that Mr. Sohaib Ahmed’s establishment in the UAE is recent and limited. He moved there in late 2019 and his family followed in 2020. The business he started appears to have modest revenue. Someone else may take care of rental properties, which may easily be sold. While Mr. Sohaib Ahmed’s parents are now living with the family in the UAE, there is little information about them in the application.

[8] The officer was entitled to rely on the fact that the applicants only have temporary status in the UAE. While this status may be renewed, the uncertainty inherent in this process may incentivize foreign nationals to remain in Canada. This Court has validated visa refusals based on similar considerations: Sadiq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 at paragraph 22; Khaleel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1385 at paragraphs 22–34.

[9] Thus, having regard to this evidence, which they are presumed to have reviewed, the officer could reasonably find that the applicants’ establishment in the UAE was “reduced,” and that it did not outweigh other factors, most importantly the applicants’ family ties in Canada.

[10] Accordingly, the decision to deny the visitor visa was reasonable. For this reason, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9377-21

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question is certified.

"Sébastien Grammond"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: