Super Visa Refusal Upheld Over Financial Evidence

A Super Visa refusal over financial evidence was upheld after the Federal Court found that the applicant had not shown the visa officer’s assessment of the host’s financial documentation was unreasonable. The judicial review application was dismissed without costs.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Vokshi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1346; Court file IMM-10807-25.
• Decision date & judge: November 3, 2026, by the Honourable Madam Justice Danielle Ferron.
• Issue: The applicant challenged the March 25, 2025 refusal of her temporary Super Visa application, which cited insufficient evidence that her hosts met the minimum necessary income.
• Outcome: The application for judicial review was denied without costs; no question of general importance was certified.

Officer found the financial documentation insufficient

Mrs. Hajrije Vokshi, an Albanian citizen, applied for a temporary Super Visa to visit her daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren in Canada. An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer refused the application after finding that she had not demonstrated that her child or grandchild met the minimum necessary income.

The applicant argued that the officer failed to assess her hosts’ 2023 income tax assessments and banking income statements. She also submitted that her hosts were self-employed, which explained the absence of employment letters, and that a 2024 income tax assessment was not yet available.

Justice Ferron found that the determinative issue before the officer was whether the hosts had demonstrated sufficient funds to support the visit. The Court noted that Super Visa applications place significant emphasis on the host’s financial situation.

Court would not consider documents outside the record

The applicant’s affidavit attached financial, relationship and invitation documents that she said had been submitted to the officer. However, apart from the refusal decision, those documents were not included in the Certified Tribunal Record.

The Court held that, without evidence to the contrary, it would presume the Certified Tribunal Record contained the material that was before the officer. It treated the missing exhibits as new evidence and declined to consider them because they had not been before the decision-maker and no recognized exception applied.

On the record available to the officer, Justice Ferron found that nothing directly contradicted the officer’s conclusion that the financial evidence was lacking. The Court held that the officer reasonably assessed the limited evidence before them.

No fairness duty to seek further financial evidence

The applicant also argued that the process was unfair because she was not given an opportunity to explain the absence of a 2024 income tax assessment or supplement the application.

The Court disagreed. It said the duty of procedural fairness in visa applications is at the lower end of the spectrum and that an officer does not have to give an applicant an opportunity to respond where the concern is the sufficiency of the evidence, rather than the credibility, accuracy or genuineness of the information provided.

The Court concluded that the onus remained on the applicant to establish that her host had the required funds. Although the officer’s reasons were brief, Justice Ferron found them sufficient, transparent and justified in light of the record.

Court addressed shortcomings by both parties

The judgment also addressed procedural problems in the judicial review. The Court found that most authorities cited in the applicant’s written memorandum did not support the propositions for which they were cited and that their citations and styles of cause did not match the alleged authorities.

Justice Ferron said the errors suggested the authorities had been generated by artificial intelligence. The Court noted its May 7, 2024 practice direction requiring litigants to declare the use of artificial intelligence, and found that self-representation when the record was prepared did not excuse non-compliance with the Court’s guidelines.

The respondent had filed a notice of appearance but did not file a responding record despite Registry follow-ups. At the hearing, the Court refused the respondent’s request to make oral submissions limited to the applicant’s oral submissions, finding that allowing it would be unfair to the applicant.

The Court nevertheless reviewed the available file, the Certified Tribunal Record and the applicant’s oral submissions before dismissing the judicial review.

What the decision means

This decision concerns the record and arguments in this individual Super Visa application. It shows that, on judicial review, the Court generally assesses whether the officer’s decision was reasonable based on the material before the officer, rather than reassessing documents presented for the first time in court.

It also confirms that a short visa refusal rationale may be upheld where the record supports the officer’s stated concern and the applicant has not established a sufficiently serious flaw in the decision-making process.

Source: Federal Court Decisions