TRV Refusal Overturned AI Tool's Role Questioned

August 5, 2025

Gao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 127

In an increasingly digitized immigration landscape, the human element of decision-making remains paramount. This was powerfully affirmed on January 22, 2025, when the Federal Court of Canada delivered a landmark judgment in Gao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 127. Presided over by Madam Justice Whyte Nowak, this case delves into the critical scrutiny of Temporary Resident Visa (TRV) refusals, particularly where an AI tool’s influence and an officer’s oversight are questioned. This post will dissect the specifics of Yuanze Gao and Yang Zhang’s challenge, the court’s pivotal findings, and the broader implications for both applicants and immigration decision-makers in Canada.

Gao and Zhang's Visit Dream Denied

The applicants, Yuanze Gao (the Principal Applicant) and his spouse, Yang Zhang, are Chinese citizens who sought TRVs to visit family in Canada. Their stated purpose for travel was a one-month stay to reunite with family, particularly Gao’s sister, who had planned to cover the couple’s expenses during their visit.

However, their TRV applications were refused on December 4, 2023. The visa officer, relying on the Global Case Management System (GCMS) and Chinook 3+, cited two primary reasons:

  1. Insufficient Financial Means: The officer was unconvinced that the applicants had sufficient financial resources for their stay. The officer raised concerns about the origin of the funds in their bank statements.
  2. Purpose of Visit: The officer determined that the applicants’ stated purpose for visiting Canada was inconsistent with a temporary stay based on the details in their application.

The applicants sought judicial review, arguing that the decisions were unreasonable and failed to consider critical evidence in their favour.

The Court's Examination Begins

The court’s review revolved around two main issues:

  1. Was the visa officer’s decision reasonable?
  2. Did the officer fail to consider material evidence submitted by the applicants?

The applicable standard of review for administrative decisions in immigration matters is reasonableness, as set out in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65. A reasonable decision must be transparent, intelligible, and justified.

Findings on Financial Evidence

The applicants argued that the officer’s reliance on their bank statements as the sole financial evidence was flawed. While the bank statements showed savings of $134,000, the officer questioned the funds’ origin without acknowledging other substantial financial evidence, such as:

  • Employment letters indicating stable jobs and income for both applicants.
  • Documentation from Gao’s sister, who confirmed her financial support, including her household income of $162,036, tax records, and ownership of her residence.
  • The couple’s stated purpose of visiting as part of a belated honeymoon and family reunion.

The court found that the officer had failed to address this significant evidence, which directly countered the refusal rationale. The omission undermined the reasonableness of the decision, as noted in Ul Zaman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 268, where the failure to consider critical evidence was deemed unreasonable.

Unjustified Doubts on Travel Intent

The court also scrutinized the officer’s reasoning that the applicants’ purpose of visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay. The officer’s vague and unexplained reference to inconsistencies left this part of the decision unintelligible. The court noted that the refusal must identify how the purpose of the visit is inconsistent with the temporary residency requirements. This issue was compounded by the lack of clarity in the GCMS notes and the Chinook-generated reasoning.

AI's Influence Under Scrutiny

The applicants raised concerns about the use of the Chinook 3+ AI tool in assessing their applications. Chinook is an AI-based tool used to streamline immigration processing. However, it has faced criticism for generating templated reasons that may overlook nuanced or case-specific evidence.

In Mehrara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1554, the court affirmed that the use of Chinook does not displace the presumption that decision-makers consider all evidence. Nevertheless, it remains the applicant’s burden to show that critical evidence was ignored. In this case, the court found that the applicants met this burden by pointing to significant evidence that was unaddressed.

The Court's Ruling and Its Impact

Madam Justice Whyte Nowak granted the judicial review application, finding the officer’s decision unreasonable. The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different decision-maker. No question of general importance was certified.

Gao's Place in Immigration Case Law

This decision positively cited principles from the following cases:

  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65: Established the reasonableness standard for administrative decisions.
  • Ul Zaman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 268: Highlighted the requirement to consider all significant evidence.
  • Mehrara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1554: Addressed the use of AI tools like Chinook in immigration decision-making.

However, the judgment also distinguished itself from earlier cases where the sufficiency of financial evidence was upheld, such as Chatrath v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 958. In Chatrath, the court deferred to the decision-maker’s assessment, but in Gao, the court found the omission of key evidence to be a fatal flaw.

Lessons for Applicants and Decision-Makers

The Gao case underscores several important lessons for immigration applicants and decision-makers:

  1. Thorough Documentation Matters: Applicants must provide comprehensive and detailed evidence to support their applications. In this case, Gao and Zhang presented substantial financial and personal documentation, which the court found persuasive.
  2. Reasonable Decisions Require Full Consideration: Immigration officers must address all relevant evidence and provide clear, intelligible reasons for their decisions.
  3. Scrutiny of AI Tools in Immigration: The use of AI tools like Chinook in decision-making requires careful oversight to ensure procedural fairness and thorough consideration of evidence.

For immigration practitioners, the Gao judgment serves as a reminder to meticulously prepare applications while also challenging decisions that fail to meet the standards of reasonableness and transparency.

As the landscape of Canadian immigration continues to evolve, cases like Gao reinforce the importance of judicial review in holding administrative decision-makers accountable. Whether for applicants or legal professionals, understanding these dynamics is essential for navigating the complexities of immigration law.