Canada – one of the most advances countries in the world. Many people want to visit and live in Canada, but Canada is very protective of its borders. Many people submit their applications for visas to enter Canada, but Canada reserves the right to reject the applications for variety of reasons.

In fairness, it is necessary to note that many visa applications are rejected due to the fault of the applicants themselves, as they do not provide enough documents for an immigration officer to form an opinion regarding the issuance of the visa. The golden unspoken rule to keep in mind when applying for a visa is that if an officer doubts, he refuses.

Let’s discuss on what basis, factors, laws, Canadian immigration officers issue visas and how to convince one to issue you a visa.

To facilitate an explanation of the caveats in Canadian immigration law, we invite the reader to think of the immigration officer as a judge of the administrative court, because the former executes the functions and rules of the latter.

According to a decision of the Federal Court of Canada in the case of Obeng v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), all foreigners crossing the Canadian border are considered to be potential immigrants.

In other words, immigration officers a priori do not consider all applicants who are applying for a visa to enter Canada as tourists, guests, or students, but as the potential immigrants who may remain in Canada illegally. This should be taken into account when preparing documents for the visa.

In Canada, all visa applications are evaluated according to two mega-parameters: whether the applicant is “eligible” and “admissible”. “Eligibility” parameter: whether the applicant will return to his country or not. “Admissibility” – whether the applicant can enter Canada, given his or her transparency and sincerity in disclosing information about himself or herself, criminal background, criminal / political motives for visiting Canada, and so on.

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, a third border-crossing parameter emerged.

All travel to Canada is now restricted to relatives and for non-discretionary reasons.

These requirements can be met by an additional document created by the Ministry of Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship of Canada to facilitate border crossings for the relatives.

After the end of the pandemic, this parameter will be eliminated.

According to another decision of the Federal Court of Canada in the case of Bylon v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), we know that evidence in the visa cases is evaluated on a “balance of probabilities” – a legal standard of proof applied in civil cases, which proves that the disputed facts in the case were more likely to have occurred, more probably, than the opposing facts that were less likely to have occurred.

This standard is sometimes called the “preponderance of evidence” or 51% probability of their occurrence.

Modern Canadian immigration justice has moved away from direct, one-to-one comparisons of all the pros and cons of facts and now uses an improved, organic method of weighing facts. Thus, one important factor may outweigh several other, less important and opposite factors, and so on.

In most cases, all contentious issues in the Canadian immigration space are resolved on the standard of proof of “balance of probabilities,” but the “admissibility” issues are resolved according to a lower legal standard – “reasonable grounds”. It is so for the purpose to make it easier for immigration officers to deny inconvenient or dangerous applicants. However, if the “admissibility” is proven on the “balance of probabilities,” then, of course, the applicant will be admitted.

Deep digestion of the “admissibility” standard usually only occurs in federal courts; in the visa applications this standard is fairly easily explained-away, so most applicants never really concentrate on it.

We all understand how the presumption of innocence works. A defender is free until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on a plaintiff (prosecutor or state) to prove the guilt of the defender. If the plaintiff does not prove it, the former walks a free man.

However, in Canadian immigration law the presumption is reversed and a defender (applicant) is responsible for proving on a “balance of probabilities” that he is in fact a tourist or guest, and not a potential immigrant.

The immigration officer does not need to prove anything to anyone. And given that all visa applicants a priori are considered as immigrants, the officer’s initial position is to deny visas to all applicants. And only after careful persuasion on the part of the applicant the officer issues the visa.

It is common knowledge that many applicants submit incomplete visa applications, hoping that the immigration officer is a wise person who will fill in the blanks or will think-for, write-for and will know on behalf of the applicants what they are trying to convey in their incomplete applications. But this does not happen. The officer is not obliged to initiate any steps to meet the applicants half way.

In conclusion, to convince an officer to open a visa for you, you need to satisfy him with 2 mega-parameters: “eligibility” and “admissibility” parameters. This is done on a “balance of probabilities,” with a large number of documents.

The initiative to submit various documents must come from the applicant himself, as he bears the burden of proof and is fully responsible for proving his intention to visit Canada.

There is no need to describe what documents the applicant needs, because each case is considered individually. However, using a “balance of probabilities” of all the pros and cons, everyone can understand what additional documents must be added to make the package of documents convincing.

We wish you success in applying for a visa to the Embassy of Canada.