The Federal Court granted judicial review of a TRV Refusal involving Kaur Khurana and other applicants, finding that an officer’s conclusions on financial circumstances and family ties were unreasonable. The Court set aside the temporary resident visa decisions and returned the matters to a different officer for redetermination.
Federal Court decision and immigration context
In Kaur Khurana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1120, Justice Battista of the Federal Court considered a challenge to the refusal of applications for temporary resident visas to visit Canada. The decision was issued in Toronto, Ontario, on September 1, 2026.
The officer had primarily concluded that the applicants’ assets and financial situation were insufficient for their stated travel purpose. The officer also found that the applicants did not have significant family ties outside Canada.
Financial evidence was not adequately addressed
The officer referred to lump-sum deposits in the principal applicant’s bank statement and found that there was limited evidence about their source. Justice Battista noted, however, that the statement contained many entries between July 1, 2024, and February 23, 2025, and identified the origins of those deposits.
The Court held that it was open to the officer to seek further information about the deposits. However, it was not reasonable to definitively refuse the applications because that information was absent, given that visitors, unlike students, are not required by statute to demonstrate sufficient and available financial resources.
The applications also included detailed financial evidence describing substantial funds and assets held by the principal applicant, certified by accountants and banking representatives. The Court found that the officer’s financial-insufficiency finding did not mention this evidence and was unreasonable because it was unresponsive to the material submitted.
Family-ties finding overlooked key submissions
The Court also found the family-ties finding unreasonable. The principal applicant had submitted that her mother, her spouse’s mother and other relatives lived in India, and that these relationships were integral to the applicants.
Justice Battista concluded that the officer did not address that submission. This made the refusal unreasonable because it did not respond to a key argument advanced in the applications.
Applications remitted to a different officer
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the temporary resident visa decisions and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination.
The Court made no order regarding costs and certified no question.
Source: Federal Court Decisions