Case Law Analysis - Federal Court Expresses Surprise and Confusion: 'The Purpose of Your Visit Is Not Consistent with a Temporary Stay' – A Common Yet Flawed IRCC Rationale

In a recent Federal Court decision from September 2024, the Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant expressed notable surprise at a refusal decision made by an IRCC processing officer. The case involved two applicants, who had applied for Temporary Resident Visas (TRVs) to attend a family wedding in Canada. The visa officer rejected their applications with reasoning that, quite frankly, we as immigration lawyers have seen too often—generic and poorly justified refusal grounds.

What is particularly striking is how openly Justice Grant conveyed his confusion at the officer's conclusion. The officer claimed that "the purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application." 

Justice Grant made it clear that this statement lacked any rational explanation, as it provided no insight into how the officer reached this conclusion. The absence of notes or a detailed analysis in the decision left the judge—and anyone reading the case—wondering how such a conclusion was drawn.

Justice Grant elaborates on this in paragraphs 10 through 12 of the decision:

[10] I also find the Officer’s statements about the purpose of the Applicants’ trip to be unreasonable. The entirety of the Officer’s reasoning in this regard is as follows: “The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application inconsistent with a temporary stay.”

[11] Respectfully, I cannot discern a rational chain of analysis in this summary conclusion. Absent any further explanation, we are essentially left with a finding that the desire to attend a family wedding is inconsistent with a temporary stay. Understood in this light, I would hope that the unreasonableness of the Officer’s decision comes into focus. There is nothing unusual about travelling for a family wedding and nothing, without any further information, that suggests such travel may not be temporary.

[12] As a result, I find the decision lacks justification and is therefore unreasonable. Perhaps there was more in the record that gave rise to a concern on the part of the Officer, but such a rationale (if there was one) is not apparent in the Officer’s decision. To this extent, then, the decision lacks transparency, and is also unreasonable on this basis.

These paragraphs underscore Justice Grant’s dismay at the officer’s reasoning, or lack thereof. He pointed out that attending a family wedding is a common reason for temporary travel, and the officer failed to explain why this particular case was deemed inconsistent with a temporary visit. As immigration lawyers, we are unfortunately used to seeing these kinds of vague and generic refusal reasons, which often leave applicants bewildered and without recourse.

Addressing Common Red Flags in Advance

This decision offers valuable lessons on how applicants can address some of the most common refusal grounds in advance—not only to increase their chances of approval at the initial application stage but also to strengthen their position if they must challenge the refusal in a Judicial Review.

"The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application":

• This is perhaps the most generic refusal reason we encounter across almost all types of temporary resident visa applications, including work permits, study permits, and visitor visas. To address and eliminate concerns that lead to this refusal, applicants should clearly and simply state the purpose of their visit. The explanation must be both genuine and rational. Additionally, supporting the stated purpose with relevant evidence is crucial. This evidence can include anything that helps demonstrate the true nature of the visit. As highlighted in this decision, sometimes a clear statement from the applicant, such as "I will absolutely return home before my authorized stay expires and will absolutely leave Canada before my authorized stay," can make a difference. Although the officer in this case overlooked such a statement, it was still cited in the court’s decision as part of the applicant's rationale.

  
  

"The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada":

• Surprisingly, this refusal ground is also quite common and often stems from an unfair or unreasonable assessment by the processing officer. In my experience, officers frequently fail to adequately consider the applicant’s real connections to their home country. One way to combat this is to explicitly mention all ties, one by one. If you are a member of a professional association, state it clearly. If you have a job, a business, taxes to pay, or other obligations, make sure these are all mentioned. Ironically, even highlighting family members living in your home country—details already listed in the family information form—can be essential. It is not uncommon for officers to ignore the fact that most of your immediate family may already be residing in your home country, necessitating your return.

  
  

It is truly refreshing to see a Federal Court judge directly address these issues. Justice Grant did not just highlight the unreasonable nature of the decision; he also took the time to explain why it was unreasonable. He expressed that while visa decisions may not require exhaustive detail, they must at least meet basic standards of transparency, intelligibility, and justification.

This decision is a reminder to IRCC's processing officers that refusal reasons must be more than mere formalities—they must be grounded in clear and transparent analysis. While this case brought about judicial scrutiny, it is unfortunate that many applicants will continue to face similar refusals without the benefit of such scrutiny. Hence, as immigration lawyers, we must continue to challenge these decisions and advocate for our clients to ensure that their cases are treated with the fairness and transparency they deserve.

If you are facing a similar situation with your temporary visa refusal, please book a call with us. We can help you advocate for your interests and potentially get your refusal overturned.

—o—

About the Author

I’m Ahmet Faruk Ocak, a Canadian immigration lawyer and the founder of Blacksy Immigration Law Firm 🌊. 

At Blacksy, we specialize in providing honest, straightforward, and tailored immigration solutions to individuals and businesses worldwide. Our brand promise is simple: no unnecessary fuss, no false hopes, and no empty promises—just realistic, reliable guidance to help you achieve your immigration goals.

Whether you’re expanding your business to Canada, transferring top talent, or planning your future here, we’re here to guide you with precision, transparency, and care.

Visit us at www.blacksyimmigration.com to learn more or to start your journey.