The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard to assess the visa officer’s decision. The court focused on whether the officer’s reasoning was clear, transparent, and intelligible, based on the facts presented in the application. The court identified three critical issues that made the refusal unreasonable:

1. Family Ties: The officer’s statement that Amini lacked significant family ties outside Canada was problematic. Amini’s only family members were his parents, who lived in Iran. The officer’s dismissal of these ties—especially considering that Amini was a 19-year-old student with no dependents—was deemed unintelligible. The officer failed to consider these ties adequately and did not analyze the factors that might encourage Amini to return to Iran after his studies in Canada.
2. Adverse Information on a Family Member: The officer noted “adverse information” about a family member but did not explain what this information was, nor did the officer indicate why it was relevant to the refusal. The immigration consultant representing Amini suggested that this may have been related to confusion between Amini and his father in a prior visa refusal. However, the officer’s vague reference was not substantiated, and the court found it speculative and insufficiently explained to justify its use in the decision.
3. Study Plan Dismissal: The officer dismissed Amini’s study plan as consisting of “sweeping statements” without offering a detailed explanation. Amini had argued that his chosen program in project management would prepare him for the high demand for professionals in Iran’s growing infrastructure sector. Despite these clear justifications, the officer did not provide a transparent analysis of why this argument was inadequate. The lack of a specific, reasoned dismissal of Amini’s study plan raised further concerns about the decision’s transparency.