What a visitor visa application actually has to establish

The burden sits on the applicant's side

A common reaction to a refused visitor visa is to ask what IRCC had to go on in deciding this person would not leave. Under the provision, that was never IRCC's to establish.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s.20(1):

20 (1) Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in section 19, who
seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish,
(a) to become a permanent resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the
regulations and have come to Canada in order to establish permanent residence; and
(b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the
regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

The words to look at are must establish. It falls to the applicant to establish it. What has to be established is written into (b): that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

The phrase "intention to immigrate" cannot be found in the provision. What the provision asks for is a judgment about the future, about whether the person goes when the day arrives. IRCC's side does not have to establish that this person will not go. The applicant's side has to satisfy the officer that they will.

Seven conditions for issuing, set out in the Regulations

The conditions are not the officer's to set. They are written into the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), s.179, and there are seven of them:

179 An officer shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if, following an
examination, it is established that the foreign national
(a) has applied in accordance with these Regulations for a temporary resident visa as a member of
the visitor, worker or student class;
(b) will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2;
(c) holds a passport or other document that they may use to enter the country that issued it or
another country;
(d) meets the requirements applicable to that class;
(e) is not inadmissible;
(f) meets the requirements of subsections 30(2) and (3), if they must submit to a medical
examination under paragraph 16(2)(b) of the Act; and
(g) is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.

Taken one at a time:

Start with (a): what it says is the visitor, worker or student class. These seven govern more than tourism. Temporary resident visas for all three groups run on one set of conditions.

Shall issue. Where all seven hold, the officer is to issue. At that step there is no separate discretion left over whether to issue. The discretion sits one step earlier, in deciding whether the seven hold.

There is half a sentence in front of shall issue: following an examination, it is established. Whether they hold is settled through an examination. So reading this as "file everything and the visa follows" does not work. The question is not whether the documents went in, it is whether the point was accepted.

Paragraph (b) says the same thing again: will leave by the end of the period authorized for their stay. The weight of the whole visitor visa rests on that one line.

Planning to immigrate is not in itself a ground for refusal

A line that comes up often is that anyone with an immigration application under way should stay away from a visitor visa, because it will be refused. The provision does not say that. Subsection 22(2) of IRPA carries a heading of its own, Dual intent:

22 (1) A foreign national becomes a temporary resident if an officer is satisfied that the
foreign national has applied for that status, has met the obligations set out in paragraph
20(1)(b), is not inadmissible and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection
22.1(1).
Dual intent
(2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident
if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

Subsection (1) lays the conditions for becoming a temporary resident out once more, again on the officer being satisfied: that the person applied for the status, met the obligations in paragraph 20(1)(b), is not inadmissible, and is not the subject of a declaration under subsection 22.1(1). Paragraph 20(1)(b) turns up a second time.

Subsection (2) is the one that matters. Does not preclude: it is not a bar. Planning to become a permanent resident cannot on its own be used to knock out an application for temporary resident status.

The condition is written into the back half of the same sentence: the officer is satisfied that this person will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. That line again.

Nor does it read in reverse. A permanent residence application already on file does not turn into a point in the applicant's favour, and the provision carries no such sense. It governs one thing only: an intention to become a permanent resident is not a ground for exclusion. What has to be decided is still whether the person leaves on time.

Which is also why establishing an absence of any intention to immigrate has nowhere to land from the outset. The Act says in terms that such an intention does not preclude temporary resident status, so establishing that it is absent establishes something other than what the provision asks for.

Why (b) is the hard one

Of the seven, most of the other six come back with an answer that can be checked: whether there is a passport, whether the application went in as the Regulations require, whether a medical examination happened where one was required, whether anything makes the person inadmissible. Yes or no.

(b) is different. It asks about conduct that has not happened yet. No document goes directly to a future fact, so the officer draws it out of the application sitting in front of them. That drawing out happens on the officer's side.

Which is also why refusal letters of this kind read so much alike. The reasons cycle through the same handful of lines and never settle anywhere specific.

The same logic governs what the road after a refusal looks like. Asking IRCC to reconsider an application of this kind usually does not move it, because the letter holds no error anyone can point to. Whether each of those routes holds up has a page of its own: After a refusal: reconsideration, reapplying, or judicial review.

How much money to have ready, how an invitation letter should read: this page gives no list. Those follow the individual case.

Parents and grandparents have another route in the super visa, on conditions of its own: see Bringing parents and grandparents to Canada: the super visa, and the income rule that changed in 2026.

An eTA is not a visa, it is a separate thing

Whether what has to be obtained before travelling to Canada is a visa or an eTA (electronic travel authorization) depends on nationality and on how the person travels. The two are not one thing, and an eTA is not a visa.

What the official page sets out about the eTA:

This is the Government of Canada's official web page to apply for an electronic travel
authorization (eTA) to travel to, or transit through, Canada. It only costs CAN$7.

To apply, you must have a valid passport, a credit or debit card and an email address, and you
must answer a few questions in the online application.

The fee is CAN$7. Applying takes a valid passport, a credit or debit card and an email address, then a few questions answered in the online application.

The official page also carries a separate item on Canadians who hold dual citizenship: in that situation what is used is a Canadian passport, not an eTA.

Which of the two applies to a given person is governed by what the official page sets out. This page lists no countries.

The one with no pass mark

The provisions can be looked up and the seven conditions can be listed out. One same set of documents, put together with a different reason for the trip and a different background behind it, can be read to a different conclusion.

s.20(1)(b), s.179(b) and s.22(2) put the same thing in writing three times over, and s.22(1) points back to 20(1)(b) once more. With the legislation gone that far, the space left over sits entirely in whether the officer is satisfied.

The cost is not symmetrical either. After a refusal of this kind there is often no error anyone can name, and the only thing still open to change is the next application. Effort spent before filing goes further than effort spent after a refusal.

To work out before filing whether (b) holds up in your own situation, consultation rates are here.

Common questions