Docket: IMM-1289-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1234
Toronto, Ontario, November 4, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
OMOWUNMI
RISIKAT ADEKOYA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The Applicant has applied for judicial review of
a decision dated February 29, 2016 [the Decision] made by an immigration
officer [the Officer] in which her application to extend her study permit was
denied. This application was made pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27 [the IRPA].
[2]
The Applicant is a thirty one year old Nigerian
citizen and the single mother of a six year old Canadian-born daughter.
[3]
The Applicant came to Canada in January 2008 to
begin a Bachelor of Arts program at the University of Manitoba. She gave birth
to her daughter in April of 2010.
[4]
The Applicant’s initial study permit was renewed
in 2011 and in late 2015 she applied for a further renewal [the Renewal
Application]. It was denied in the Decision which is the subject of this
application.
I.
THE APPLICANT’S FINANCES
[5]
As part of the Renewal Application the Applicant
provided documentation from an ATM machine which showed that she had $5,010.00
in her bank account. On the Renewal Application she said that she had funds on
hand of $5,000.00 and that her parents would pay her expenses. However, there
was no documentation showing her parents’ willingness and ability to provide
her with financial support.
II.
THE DECISION
[6]
The Officer refused to renew the Applicant’s
study permit because she did not provide evidence of sufficient funds. She had
only $5,000.00. This would not have paid her tuition even for one term and it
would not have covered her room and board or her childcare expenses. The
Officer also concluded that the Applicant had not actively pursued her studies
because in eight years she had earned only half the credits needed for a four
year degree and she had failed or abandoned a number of courses. For this
reason the Officer was concerned that the Applicant was not a bona fide
visitor and that she would not leave at the end of her authorized stay. It is
noteworthy that in her Renewal Application the Applicant did not explain whether
she had access to additional funds.
III.
THE ISSUES
1.
Did the Officer have a duty to ask the Applicant
to explain her lack of funds?
2.
Was the Decision reasonable?
IV.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
[7]
An officer who considers an application to
extend a study permit has no obligation to make his or her concerns known or to
hold an interview, unless he has relied on extrinsic evidence or has
credibility concerns. Neither of these situations arises in this case.
[8]
However, the Applicant says that because the Renewal
Application said that her parents would provide support, the Officer had a duty
to ask her what they would contribute. In my view there is no such duty,
particularly when the sufficiency of funds is dealt with in the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [the Regulations]. The
onus was on the Applicant to bring forward information about her parents’ plans
and resources.
[9]
Section 220 of the Regulations states
that an officer “shall not” issue a study permit unless, without working,
students have sufficient funds to pay their tuition, maintain themselves and
family members, and transport themselves and family members home from Canada. Since
she had insufficient funds, the Officer had no discretion and was required to
deny the Renewal Application. The Decision was therefore reasonable.
[10]
Given this conclusion it is not necessary to
consider the other reasons given for the Decision.
V.
CERTIFICATION
[11]
No question was posed for certification for
appeal.
Email this Content