Golmohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Golmohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2026-04-01 Neutral citation 2026 FC 428 File numbers IMM-17687-24 Decision Content Date: 20260401 Docket: IMM-17687-24 Citation: 2026 FC 428 Toronto, Ontario, April 1, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista BETWEEN:

ELAHEHSADAT GOLMOHAMMADI

NIRVANA BANAERAGHI

SAYNA BANAERAGHI Applicants and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Overview [1] The Applicants seek judicial review of the decisions refusing study permit applications for the two minor Applicants, and the accompanying temporary resident visa application made by their mother, the adult Applicant. [2] A visa officer (Officer) refused the study permit applications based on concerns about the study plan which supported them as well as concerns about the minor Applicants’ motivations to return to Iran, their country of citizenship. The adult Applicant’s application was refused based on the refusal of the minor Applicants’ applications. [3] For the reasons that follow, the decisions are unreasonable due to their lack of responsiveness to the evidence and submissions provided by the Applicants. The application for judicial review is therefore granted. II. Background [4] The minor Applicants applied for study permits after being accepted to study in the Toronto District School Board. Their mother applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to accompany them to Canada and to assist them to adjust to life in Canada. [5] The applications were initially refused on January 9, 2024, then re-opened for redetermination after judicial review proceedings were commenced in this Court. After the Applicants provided updated documents and information, the applications were refused again on August 7, 2024. [6] The refusal of the study permit

applications was based on two grounds. First, the Officer found that the study plans that supported the applications contained “insufficient explanation or details” regarding how their Canadian studies would provide a benefit to them at this stage in their lives. Second, the Officer found that the minor Applicants’ family ties in Iran were not “sufficiently strong” to motivate them to return to Iran. [7] As noted above, the Applicants’ mother’s application was refused based on the refusal of her children’s study permit applications. [8] Pursuant to the Order of Justice Elizabeth Heneghan dated January 21, 2026, I have determined this matter based on the parties’ written submissions only. III. Issue [9] The sole issue is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable pursuant to the relevant legal and factual constraints described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], affirmed in Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21. A decision’s level of responsiveness to the evidence and submissions provided to the decision maker is a key measurement of a reasonable decision (Vavilov, at paras 125-128). IV. Analysis [10] The Officer’s decision is unreasonable because it was not responsive to the minor Applicants’ study plans or their family ties to Iran. A. Lack of responsiveness to the Applicants’ study plans [11] The

Officer’s concerns with the Applicants’ study plans were described as follows: Insufficient explanation or details have been given on how the proposed studies in Canada will [be] of benefit at this stage in the PA’s life. Study plan refers to general advantageous comments regarding the value of education in Canada and makes sweeping statements on how the education will improve the applicant’s situation in Iran. [12] By contrast, the Applicants’ study plans contained the following information which addressed the Officer’s concerns: -Six bullet points describing their attraction to Canadian studies, such as the affordability of education, superior post-secondary education in data science, and the utility of a Canadian education in English; -A description of the minor Applicants’ intentions to pursue post-secondary education and training as a nurse and a doctor in Canada, and their desire to enter the Canadian education system and Canadian society early in order to minimize the risk of culture shock and to use their high school background and knowledge so that they “will not have to spend time and energy on matters like improving [their English] language skills or securing accommodation”; -A detailed description of poor-quality high schools and curriculum in Iran, and the weak post-secondary digital facilities and technology in Iran. [13] The Officer’s concerns do not correspond

with the information in the Applicants’ study plans, and the Officer’s failure to engage with the Applicants’ detailed evidence and submissions renders the decision unreasonable (Safaie v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1761 at paras 14-15). B. Lack of responsiveness to the Applicant’s evidence of family ties [14] The Officer expressed a concern that the Applicants’ family ties to Iran were not strong enough to motivate their return. The Officer stated: I am not satisfied with the applicant’s stated family ties as sufficiently strong (or documented) to warrant a return to Iran. I note that the intended travel to Canada involves the applicant’s immediate family members (parent + sibling), thus weakening the applicant’s ties to Iran as well as diminishing their motivation to return. [15] The Officer failed to note the Applicants’ evidence that their father and brother would remain in Iran. The Officer also failed to note evidence that the adult Applicant would be in Canada temporarily to assist the minor Applicants in their adjustment to Canada, and that she would then return to employment in Iran. The Officer’s failure to account for this evidence, which contradicted the conclusion that the minor Applicants would not be motivated to return to Iran due to their family ties, renders the decision unreasonable (Vavilov, at para 126). V. Conclusion [16] The Officer’s

findings that led to the refusal of the applications did not engage with the evidence and submissions provided by the minor Applicants, rendering the refusal of the study permits unreasonable. Because the refusal of the adult Applicant’s temporary resident visa was based on these unreasonable refusals, the decision rendered on the adult Applicant’s application is also unreasonable. JUDGMENT in IMM-17687-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is granted, the decisions made on the Applicants’ student and temporary resident visa applications are set aside, and the matters are remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "Michael Battista" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-17687-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: ELAHEHSADAT GOLMOHAMMADI, NIRVANA BANAERAGHI, SAYNA BANAERAGHI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CONSIDERED IN WRITING AT TORONTO, ONTARIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT’S ORDER DATED JANUARY 21, 2026 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BATTISTA J. DATED: ApRIL 1, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Sean Alexander Yauk For The ApplicantS Leila Jawando For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Zarei Professional Law Corporation Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent