TRV application: approved after two refusals and two judicial review applications

When applying for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) to Canada, many applicants expect a straightforward process - submit the required documents, wait for processing, and receive a decision. Unfortunately, for some (and now for many), this journey is far from simple. Today, I want to share a particularly challenging case I’ve been working on for almost two years, that highlights the importance of persistence to overcome repeated refusals and secure a TRV for a client.

The Initial TRV Application and Refusal

The Applicant, who lived in Pakistan, reached out to me back in August 2023, requesting assistance in preparing a strong TRV application. In fact, the Applicant already had two refusals of her TRV to Canada, and was worried that this could be seen as a negative factor by the Officer.

Well, about a month later, we submitted a well-documented TRV application for herself and two accompanying dependents to visit the Applicant’s brother, who was a Permanent Resident of Canada. The primary purpose of the trip was to spend quality time together, as the Applicant and her brother had not seen each other in nearly two years. Of course, the trip would also include some sightseeing, shopping, and some family time traveling around Toronto and vicinity.

To demonstrate temporary intent, in the application we provided extensive evidence, including:

• Strong Family Ties: The Applicant declared multiple immediate and extended family members residing in Pakistan, including her elderly mother, many siblings, nieces, nephews, and other relatives. As the primary caregiver for her elderly mother, the Applicant explained that she had significant obligations requiring her return.

• Stable Employment: The Applicant had been employed for over eight years with a well-established multinational corporation, earning a quite competitive salary with benefits, a pension plan, and continuous career growth. She provided an employment letter, salary slips, and documentation of her several promotions.

• Educational Commitments: The accompanying dependents of the Principal Applicant were full-time students enrolled in reputable universities in Pakistan, with firm graduation timelines extending well beyond the planned visit. Their ongoing studies, of course, required their return to Pakistan.

• Financial Stability: The Applicant demonstrated substantial financial means, having saved approximately $30,000 CAD specifically for travel. She provided comprehensive bank statements, proof of a stable salary, and documentation of additional assets such as investment savings certificates.

• Property Ownership: The Applicant owned a residential plot of land, as well as a private vehicle and other financial instruments requiring in-person management.

• Extensive Travel History: Over the past decade, the Applicant and her dependents had traveled to multiple countries, including the UAE, Thailand, Malaysia, Italy, Switzerland, France, the Maldives, and Turkey. At no time did the Applicant remain beyond the time authorized for her temporary stay.

• Religious and Community Involvement: The Applicant was actively engaged with a local religious institution and participated in multiple professional and social organizations, further demonstrating her rootedness in Rakistan.

Despite presenting a very compelling case with a strong 6-page long Letter of Intent, IRCC refused the TRV application, citing concerns over temporary intent. The officer provided the following reasons for refusal:

“I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR. I am refusing your application because you have not established that you will leave Canada, based on the following factors:

• You do not have significant family ties outside Canada.

• The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.

• I am not satisfied that you have truthfully answered all questions asked of you.”

The applicant, obviously very frustrated with the outcome, now had three possible solutions:

1. Request Reconsideration: She could request that IRCC re-examine the decision, though this rarely results in a reversal unless there was a clear processing error.

2. Reapply: She could submit a new TRV application with additional supporting documents addressing the concerns raised in the refusal.

3. Challenge the Refusal in Federal Court: She could file for judicial review, arguing that the decision was unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

Given the strength of her initial application and the arbitrary nature of the refusal, and given that this is now her third refusal, we opted for judicial review as the best course of action.

First Judicial Review: Challenging the Refusal

We filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review (ALJR) and awaited the Rule 9 reasons, which provide insight into the visa officer’s rationale. Upon receiving the Rule 9 reasons, it became clear that the officer had not properly engaged with the evidence or the legal submission. Worse, the officer had misapprehended the facts and erroneously concluded that the Applicant had failed to disclose a prior US visa refusal.

In reality, the Applicant had fully disclosed all previous visa refusals, including her US visitor visa refusal, as well as two previous Canada TRV refusals. This information was clearly stated in the IMM 5257 form and in a Letter of Intent. The officer’s error on this point undermined the entire basis for the refusal.

Additionally, the officer incorrectly found that the applicant had no significant family ties outside Canada, despite the fact that she had provided a detailed submission outlining her strong family connections, including her elderly mother, multiple siblings, and extended family members, all residing in her home country. Furthermore, the officer disregarded substantial evidence demonstrating that the applicant’s trip was purely temporary in nature, supported by a clear itinerary, round-trip airfare, and a detailed invitation letter from her family member in Canada.

After reviewing the Rule 9 reasons, we reached out to the Department of Justice (DOJ) with a settlement offer. In our proposal, we outlined the key errors in the refusal, emphasizing that:

• The refusal of a US visa had been disclosed in full.

• The applicant had significant family ties outside Canada.

• The purpose of the trip was clearly temporary and well-documented.

Despite the compelling arguments, the DOJ rejected our settlement offer. As a result, we had no choice but to proceed with filing the Application Record (AR) at the Federal Court, presenting a full legal argument challenging the officer’s decision.

It was only after the AR was filed that the DOJ reached out to us with a counter-offer to settle the matter. Recognizing that our case was strong and that the officer’s reasoning was deeply flawed, the DOJ proposed a settlement that would set aside the refusal and allow for a redetermination by a different visa officer. We accepted the settlement, in hopes that a different officer would make a positive determination on the reopened application.

Second Refusal: Another Setback

The reopened application after our first judicial review was surprisingly refused again. This time, the officer provided only one reason:

“The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.”

By this point, the Applicant was understandably frustrated. Despite addressing every concern raised in the previous refusal, it felt as though IRCC was merely testing how persistent she was and whether she would eventually exhaust her financial resources in challenging these arbitrary decisions.

Once again, we filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review (ALJR) and waited for the Rule 9 reasons. The officer’s justification was even weaker this time, as it failed to engage meaningfully with the substantial evidence presented in the application.

We sent another settlement offer to the Department of Justice (DOJ), pointing out the following:

• The applicant had consistently demonstrated a genuine temporary purpose for travel, supported by a strong itinerary and proof of financial self-sufficiency.

• The officer’s refusal did not engage with the applicant’s significant family ties outside Canada, which had been clearly documented.

• The decision relied on vague and unsubstantiated concerns rather than concrete evidence.

Fortunately, this time the DOJ accepted our settlement offer, and the application was reopened for redetermination once again. Finally, after a year and a half from the time we submitted the underlying application, the Applicant received good news - the TRV application was approved. After a long and exhausting process, the applicant was able to travel to Canada and will soon get to hug her brother, see his family and kids, and enjoy a well-deserved time together as a family.

Key Takeaways from This Case

This case highlights the importance of persistence in the face of unjust TRV refusals. Here are a few crucial lessons:

1. Judicial Review Can Be Effective – Many applicants believe that a refusal is the end of the road, but judicial review can be a powerful tool to challenge unfair decisions.

2. A Strong Initial Application Matters – Even though we had to fight the refusal twice, our solid documentation in the initial application helped demonstrate that the decision-making process was flawed.

3. Visa Officers Make Mistakes – TRV refusals are not always based on reasonable assessments, and applicants should not hesitate to challenge them when they believe a refusal is unfair.

4. Persistence Pays Off – While the process was long and costly, perseverance ultimately led to success.

Conclusion: Don’t Let an Unjust Refusal End Your Journey

If you’ve had your TRV application refused, don’t assume that the decision is final. Many refusals are based on incorrect assessments, misinterpretations of evidence, or arbitrary reasoning. As this case demonstrates, fighting back can lead to a positive outcome. It’s crucial to take action promptly and seek legal advice to explore your options. Whether it’s reconsideration, reapplying with a stronger case, or challenging an unfair refusal in Federal Court, having the right strategy makes all the difference.

If you’re facing a visa refusal or struggling with an unjust immigration decision, reach out for a consultation. Let’s assess your case, discuss the best course of action, and ensure your application gets the fair evaluation it deserves.