Immigration Blog

Understanding Temporary Stay Visa Refusals

Many applicants receive a visa refusal with the standard reason: "The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay." This template refusal language from IRCC signifies that the officer is not convinced you will leave Canada at the end of your authorized visit. Successfully challenging this requires understanding what factors officers consider and where their reasoning can be flawed, sometimes leading to a successful Judicial Review at the Federal Court.

• Evidence is Key: The Court frequently overturns decisions where officers ignore crucial evidence. In cases like Malasi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 10 and Jafari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 296, refusals were set aside because officers failed to consider evidence of home country ties and financial support.
• Applicant's Burden: Conversely, the Court upholds refusals when applicants fail to provide sufficient proof. Decisions in Farhan Ahmed Siddiqui v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 305 and Rehan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 246 were deemed reasonable due to insufficient funds and a history of overstay.
• Reasonable Decisions: The ultimate test is reasonableness. An officer's decision, even if brief, must be justified and intelligible based on the record. A failure to provide a rational chain of analysis can render a decision unreasonable and open to being quashed by the Court.

Navigating these requirements means building a comprehensive application that proactively addresses potential concerns about your finances, family ties, and past immigration history, thereby convincing the officer of your genuine temporary intent.