2023 FC, 2023 FC 1265

Date: 20230920Docket: IMM-6821-22 Citation: 2023 FC 1265Ottawa, Ontario September 20, 2023PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice HeneghanBETWEEN: GOLSHID LITKOUHIApplicant andTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. Golshid Litkouhi (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer, refusing her application for a visitor’svisa. In a separate decision, the Officer refused the application of the Applicant’s daughter for a study permit.

That negative decision waschallenged by way of an application for leave and judicial review in cause number IMM-6816-21. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Iran. She applied for a visitor’s visa on May 17, 2022, so that she could accompany her daughter toCanada. The Officer refused the application on the grounds of being dissatisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of anyauthorized period for her stay. [3] The Applicant argues that the Officer breached her right to procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons.

She also pleads thatthe decision is unreasonable. [4] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that there was no breach of procedural fairness and thedecision is reasonable. [5] Any issue of procedural fairness is reviewable upon the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Citizenship andImmigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.). [6] The merits of the decision are reviewable upon the standard of reasonableness, following the decision in Canada (Citizenship andImmigration) v.

Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 , [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 (S.C.C.). [7] I am not persuaded that there was any breach of procedural fairness in this case. The Applicant’s arguments about the adequacy ofthe reasons more appropriately relate to the reasonableness of the decision. In that regard, I agree with the Applicant’s submissions, thatthe decision was unreasonable. [8] In my opinion, the Officer either ignored or misunderstood the evidence about the Applicant’s ties to Iran.

The Officer apparentlywas most concerned with the possibility that the Applicant would overstay in Canada but the reasons do not show consideration of theevidence that contradicted this suspicion. The decision is unreasonable and will be set aside. JUDGMENT IN IMM-6821-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and thematter is remitted to another officer for re-determination. There is no question for certification. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6821-22STYLE OF CAUSE: GOLSHID LITKOUHI V.

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATIONPLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEO CONFERENCEDATE OF HEARING: sEPTEMBER 18, 2023JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J.DATED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 APPEARANCES:

Bahman (Ben) Azimi For The Applicant Eli Lo Re For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Azimi Law Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent