Haghshenas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 464
Many Counsel were understandably intrigued and concerned with the government’s use of “Chinook”, by some early accounts, some kind of artificial intelligence tool used by IRCC in an effort to tackle ever growing overseas (TRV) file loads.
In Haghshenas, the Court (Brown, J.) dismissed a challenge against a refusal to issue a visitor visa. As he did in Shahrukh Ali Khan 2023 FC 52, Justice Brown set out the [work permit] visa context (see paragraphs 13-16 of the decision).
This case is notable because, in addition to the emphasis on the visa context and the minimal duties at play, the Court assessed the Applicant’s arguments impugning the legality of using Chinook which is in fact a Microsoft Excel-based tool developed by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) designed to improve processing efficiency.
Brown J. found no unreasonableness or procedural unfairness in using Chinook when making a negative decision on a TRV application. The Court felt comfortable that applicant was given an opportunity to present their case and the resulting decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. Justice Brown found that the use of the tool did not change the change the decision-making process; while Chinook helped in assembling input for the decision it didn’t render the decision itself. Justice Brown took the Department at its word —that it does not use AI or advanced analytics for decision-making; that final decisions are always made by officers. Ultimately the Court gave short shrift to the applicant’s concerns about the reliability or (inappropriate) involvement of Chinook in the decision-making process.
The take-away? The involvement and engagement of Chinook in a TRV refusal on its own is not enough to carry the day.
As an aside, it seems that, depending on the visa office in question (Haghsenas was an Iranian national; the responsible visa office was Ankara), the Court will give visa officers more than the benefit of the doubt:
[31] I also agree visa officers may use their general experience and knowledge of local conditions to draw inferences and reach conclusions on the basis of the information and documents provided by the Applicant. Their Decisions are entitled to respectful deference given their experience among other things.
The officers’ reasons are utterly silent as to the inferences and conclusions that arose from “local conditions” and Justice Brown did not see fit to expound on the “other things” that result in “respectful deference” to visa officers.
This is hardly the final word. The jury, as they say, is still out; this decision is only the beginning of case law concerning the use of tools like Chinook. I am far less sanguine than Justice Brown as to the use of Chinook and Chinook’s inevitable descendants in the formulation and promulgation of administrative reasons and decisions.
Comments