Federal Court refusal decisions: what the court keeps finding unreasonable (study permits, visitor visas, work permits)

By Sundeep S. Grewal, lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation · Reviewed November 9, 2026

Published November 10, 2026

Sundeep S. Grewal is a lawyer at Lawgical Law Corporation, called to the BC bar in 2018, and a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.

Updated November 9, 2026 (first edition, quarterly digest): each decision below was read in full on the Federal Court’s decisions site that day; regulations checked on Justice Laws (current to October 19, 2026).

If your study permit, visitor visa or work permit was refused because the officer was “not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay”, the Federal Court can set that refusal aside, but only if the officer’s reasoning was unreasonable on the evidence you sent. This digest collects nine Federal Court decisions from 2025 and 2026, grouped by the reason ticked on the refusal letter: R216(1)(b) for study permits, R179(b) for visitor visas and R200(1)(b) for work permits. For each, it says what the court wanted to see and the one-line lesson. Six refusals were set aside and three were upheld, so you can see both sides. This digest is updated every quarter.

Lawgical Law Corporation, an immigration law firm in Surrey, Abbotsford and Vancouver, BC, reviews study permit, visitor visa and work permit refusals and takes them to the Federal Court on judicial review.

Book a consultation about your judicial review TapClick to open a short form. Our team will contact you to arrange a time.Short form, 4 quick fields Open form

What makes a visa or permit refusal unreasonable in the Federal Court?

A refusal is unreasonable when the officer’s reasons don’t hold together or don’t account for the evidence. The test comes from the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2019 decision in Vavilov: the decision must be justified, transparent and intelligible, and the person challenging it must show a flaw that is serious, not a minor slip.

In Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the Supreme Court made reasonableness the starting standard for reviewing administrative decisions and said that “Reasonableness review is not a line-by-line treasure hunt for error.” Every decision in this digest applies that framework, either by citing Vavilov or by applying the same test. Three points come up again and again:

• Short reasons are allowed. Visa officers handle large volumes, and the court accepts brief reasons and even standard wording if the reasoning can be followed (for example Shaterhosseini, 2026 FC 391, para 7).
• Evidence that points the other way must be dealt with. If you sent strong evidence against the officer’s conclusion, the reasons must show why the officer still reached it (for example Shahriari, 2026 FC 213, para 5).
• The government can’t add reasons later. The Department of Justice can’t defend a refusal with reasons the officer never gave (Shahriari, para 7).

The rules being applied are short. A study permit, visitor visa or work permit can be issued only if the officer is satisfied that you “will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for [your] stay” (IRPR s. 216(1)(b), s. 179(b), s. 200(1)(b)). For study permits, funds are a separate test: enough money, “without working in Canada”, for tuition, living costs and travel (IRPR s. 220). Officers often treat weak funds as a reason to doubt you will leave as well.

The nine decisions at a glance

Six of the nine refusals were set aside and sent back to a different officer; three were upheld. The difference was almost always in the evidence: where the applicant had sent specific proof and the officer didn’t deal with it, the applicant won; where the applicant’s explanation was general or missing, the refusal stood.

Study permits: R216(1)(b) study plan, funds and ties

For study permits, the court set refusals aside where the officer brushed past specific evidence: an employer letter linking the program to a job, or a loan already paid out. It upheld refusals where the study plan only said, in general terms, that the program would help. The lesson for applicants is to make the benefit concrete and documented.

Mohammad Abadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1637 (Pentney J., October 3, 2025): set aside

• The refusal: the officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada, saying similar programs were available closer to home at lower cost, that she hadn’t explained why studying in Canada was necessary, and that her academic proficiency was insufficient.
• What the court wanted to see: engagement with the employer letter that linked the program to a specific job, which the court said made it “difficult to imagine a better justification” for the program (para 8); some objective basis, such as a named program or source, for the claim that cheaper programs existed at home (paras 9 to 10); and an explanation for the academic finding, which ignored her GPAs and admission letter (para 11).
• Note: the court agreed some of her stated reasons were generic (para 7). The employer letter is what carried the case.
• Lesson: a letter from an employer saying what the program leads to is often the strongest single document in a study plan.

Bista v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 574 (Régimbald J., March 28, 2025): set aside

• The refusal: insufficient third-party evidence of funds, insufficient money without working in Canada, career progression not shown, and doubt she would leave Canada. The case went through the court’s simplified study permit pilot.
• What the court wanted to see: reasons explaining why an existing bank loan of more than $62,000 CAD, already disbursed for her benefit, was not enough (para 6). On career progression, the court found it unreasonable to expect a 19-year-old to show a career path that further studies would advance (para 7).
• Lesson: if you send hard proof of funds, such as a disbursed loan, the officer has to say why it falls short. A one-line “insufficient funds” against that evidence is open to challenge.

Adeoye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1676 (Furlanetto J., October 10, 2025): upheld

• The refusal: “as per R216(1)(b)”, insufficient information on the purpose of study and how the program would benefit the applicant.
• Why it stood: the court repeated that “It is not enough to provide general assertions about how the proposed program would benefit an applicant” (para 7, quoting earlier case law), and found there was no evidence explaining how the program would help given her professional background (paras 8 to 9).
• Lesson: a judicial review can’t fix a thin study plan. Where the plan itself was vague, a new application with a specific, documented plan is usually the better route.

Visitor visas: R179(b) “not satisfied you will leave Canada”

For visitor visas, the 2026 decisions turn on family ties. The court set refusals aside where the officer ignored strong ties at home or treated family in Canada as decisive without explanation. It upheld a refusal where the applicant’s spouse and children were in Canada and he offered little evidence of the ties he still had abroad.

Shahriari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 213 (Turley J., February 13, 2026): set aside

• The refusal: visitor visa under R179(b), with family ties and economic motives as the reasons.
• What the court wanted to see: some acknowledgment of the applicant’s 21 years of employment, bank funds, property and residence with her elderly parents in Iran (para 4). Where the evidence against the conclusion is significant, the officer must explain why the conclusion was reached despite it (para 5). The government’s lawyers could not fill the gap with reasons the officer never gave (para 7).
• Lesson: long employment, property and caring for parents at home are the kind of ties an officer must weigh; if the reasons don’t mention them, that is a strong ground for review.

Farajollahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 390 (Duchesne J., March 23, 2026): set aside

• The refusal: a father and his minor daughter, visiting family in Canada; the officer cited significant family ties in Canada, no significant family ties outside Canada and a purpose not consistent with a temporary stay.
• What the court wanted to see: an explanation of why relatives in Canada counted as “significant” while relatives in Tehran did not (para 23), and some discussion of his medical practice, his economic and social ties, and his history of returning home after three earlier family visits (para 25). The court said it is unreasonable to infer that someone will overstay just because they have strong family ties in Canada (para 19).
• Result: sent back to a different officer, with the applicants allowed to file additional documents.
• Lesson: a record of past visits and returns is strong evidence, and an officer who ignores it is exposed on review.

Shaterhosseini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 391 (Ngo J., March 23, 2026): upheld

• The refusal: R179(b), for a visit to his common-law spouse and children in Vancouver, with the same three ticked reasons as Farajollahi.
• Why it stood: the refusal letter and officer’s notes did consider his family in both countries (para 9). He listed his parents and four siblings in Iran but pointed to no other evidence the officer ignored (para 10), and the officer could reasonably find he might be “less motivated to leave Canada” with his immediate family here (para 11). Standard wording was acceptable (para 7).
• Lesson: decided the same day as Farajollahi, on the same ticked boxes, with the opposite result. When your spouse and children are in Canada, the application has to prove the ties abroad (work, property, care duties), not just list relatives.

Work permits: R200(1)(b) “not satisfied you will leave Canada”

For work permits, the court set refusals aside where the officer’s family-ties finding was speculative or simply stated without reasons. It upheld one where the family-ties finding was wrong but the officer had another sound reason: the applicant had not shown how he would pay for required training. A flawed reason does not win the case if a solid one remains.

Wasal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 322 (Brouwer J., March 9, 2026): set aside

• The refusal: Temporary Foreign Worker Program work permit under R200(1)(b): no significant family ties outside Canada, and not able to do the work.
• What the court wanted to see: on ties, the applicant lived at home with her parents in the same city; the court said it was “certainly open” to the officer to find the evidence insufficient, but a bare, unreasoned conclusion did not meet the Vavilov standard (para 9). On ability to do the job, the officer needed a rational chain of analysis and could not rely on a checklist requirement it never mentioned (para 14).
• Result: sent back to a different officer, with a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to update her application.
• Lesson: the officer can reach a negative conclusion, but has to give a reason for it.

Chahal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1851 (Fuhrer J., November 20, 2025, heard in Vancouver): set aside

• The refusal: a two-year farm harvesting labourer work permit; the officer cited insufficient funds, significant family ties in Canada and a purpose not consistent with a temporary stay.
• What the court wanted to see: actual evidence of current family in Canada. The officer relied on refused visitor visa applications by the applicant, his parents and his brother, which did not show anyone living in Canada; the court called the finding “rooted in unexplained speculation” (paras 9 to 10). His parents and brother lived in India, and he worked on the family farm with his father (para 12).
• Lesson: a finding about family “in Canada” has to rest on something in the file, not on the family’s past applications.

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1768 (Strickland J., November 3, 2025): upheld

• The refusal: an LMIA-supported long-haul truck driver work permit, refused under R200(1)(b).
• Why it stood: the court agreed the family-ties finding was unreasonable, since his wife, two children and parents all lived in India (paras 11 to 12). But the officer’s concern about how he would pay for MELT training was based on the record and reasonable; there was no evidence he legally owned the house, and his bank balance was very low (paras 24 to 25). That finding was “determinative” (para 26). “The decision was not perfect. However, viewed in whole it was reasonable” (para 37).
• Lesson: before filing, check every reason on the refusal. Winning on one ground is not enough if another sound ground supports the refusal.

Should I seek judicial review or reapply?

Judicial review fits when the officer ignored or misread evidence you actually sent. Reapplying fits when the refusal points to evidence you didn’t send. The court reviews only the record before the officer: in Paudel, 2025 FC 1139 (para 8), it refused to rely on an explanation that was not in the application.

• Judicial review: you sent specific evidence (an employer letter, a disbursed loan, proof of property, past travel and returns) and the reasons don’t deal with it; or the reasons rest on a fact that isn’t in the file. Deadline: 15 or 60 days (IRPA s. 72(2)(b)). If it succeeds, the file goes back to a new officer; see what redetermination means and what to send.
• New application: the refusal points to something missing (a vague study plan, no proof of the ties abroad, unexplained funds), as in Adeoye and Shaterhosseini.
• Both: sometimes it makes sense to file a judicial review and prepare a stronger new application at the same time.

Immigration consultants can’t represent you in the Federal Court; only you or a lawyer can (Federal Courts Rules, r. 119). Year-by-year filing and leave figures are on our page on Federal Court immigration judicial review statistics.

Mistakes I have seen

• I have seen study plans that say the program will “improve my career” without a letter from an employer or any detail on what job it leads to. The court treats that as a general assertion (Adeoye).
• I have seen visitor visa applications for a visit to a spouse and children in Canada that list relatives at home but send no proof of a job, property or care duties there (Shaterhosseini).
• I have seen applicants challenge only the reason they think is weakest and ignore a second reason that holds up on its own (Singh).
• I have seen people try to add the missing documents to the court file. The court reviews what the officer had (Paudel, para 8; Ataollahi, 2026 FC 69, paras 9 to 12).

Frequently asked questions

Does a Federal Court win mean I get the visa?

No. In each of the six decisions set aside here, the court sent the file back to a different officer for a new decision. The new officer can still refuse, but must decide reasonably and consider the court’s findings.

Can I send new documents to the Federal Court?

Generally no. The court reviews the decision on the evidence the officer had; new documents usually go into a new application, or into the redetermination if the judicial review succeeds.

Are boilerplate refusal reasons automatically unreasonable?

No. The court accepts short reasons and standard wording when the reasoning can be followed (Shaterhosseini, para 7). The problem arises when the wording doesn’t deal with the evidence you actually sent.

Do these cases apply to my refusal?

Only if your facts and evidence are similar. Each decision turns on its own record, so read them as examples of what the court looks for, not as predictions.

How often will this digest be updated?

Every quarter, with new 2026 decisions added under the same three headings. Each edition is dated at the top of the page.

Related guides: leave denied in the Federal Court and boilerplate or AI-looking refusal reasons.

What should I do right now?

Put your refusal letter next to the officer’s notes (request them if you don’t have them) and list every reason given. For each one, find the document you sent that answers it. If you sent it and the officer didn’t deal with it, that may be a ground for judicial review; if you didn’t send it, a new application may be better. Fifteen days passes fast for decisions made in Canada. Related guides: study permit refusals, visitor visa refusals and work permit refusals.

Ready to book? Open the booking form ↑

Sources (official)

• Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, s. 179(b), s. 200(1)(b), s. 216(1)(b) and s. 220 (current to 2026-10-19).
• Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 72 (current to 2026-10-19).
• Federal Courts Rules, r. 119.
• Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65.
• Federal Court decisions (decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca): 2025 FC 1637, 2025 FC 574, 2025 FC 1676, 2026 FC 213, 2026 FC 390, 2026 FC 391, 2026 FC 322, 2025 FC 1851, 2025 FC 1768, 2025 FC 1139, 2026 FC 69.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts.