Docket: IMM-4320-16
Citation:
2017 FC 513
St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, May 19, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JOLOMI EMMANUEL
EJEYE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Mr. Jolomi Emmanuel Ejeye (the “Applicant”)
seeks judicial review of the decision, dated October 12, 2016, refusing his
application for a study permit pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”).
[2]
The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. On
February 16, 2015, he applied for a study permit and was refused on March 25,
2015.
[3]
The Applicant reapplied on May 18, 2015 and was
refused on February 29, 2016. He sought judicial review of that decision in
cause number IMM-1580-16. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the
“Respondent”) agreed to re-determine the application for the study permit, upon
discontinuance of the application for leave and judicial review.
[4]
The Applicant’s application was reconsidered and
again, a negative decision was rendered, on October 12, 2016. That decision is
the subject of the within application for judicial review.
[5]
The Applicant argues that the Officer breached
the duty of procedural fairness by failing to advise him of concerns, including
concerns about his credibility. He pleads that the Officer imported a
subjective view of his qualifications and status as student. He also submits
that the Officer misinterpreted the Regulations.
[6]
The Respondent argues that the case raises no
issue of procedural fairness or of statutory interpretation. Rather it is about
the assessment of the evidence by the Office, particularly about the financial
support available to the Applicant were he given permission to study in Canada.
[7]
The standard of review applicable to issues of
procedural fairness is correctness; see the decision in Mission Institute v.
Khela, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502 at paragraph 79. Credibility findings and questions
of mixed fact and law are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the
decisions in Imran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016
FC 916 at paragraph 13 and Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1
S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 53.
[8]
According to the decision in Dunsmuir, supra
at paragraph 47, the standard of reasonableness requires that the decision be
justifiable, intelligible and transparent, and fall within a range of
acceptable outcomes.
[9]
I agree with the Respondent that no breach of
procedural fairness arises in this case. The Applicant has not clearly identified
such an error. The Officer was not obliged to contact him about the contents of
his application.
[10]
However, I am not satisfied that the Officer
reached a reasonable conclusion in denying the Applicant’s application.
[11]
There is no explanation for the Officer’s focus
on the Applicant’s age nor why this is relevant to his current application. The
Officer also unreasonably questioned the Applicant’s previous educational
achievements and in my opinion unreasonably expressed doubt about his work
experience. In my opinion, this misplaced emphasis colours the Officer’s
assessment of the application and renders the decision unreasonable.
[12]
In the result, the application for judicial review
is allowed and the matter is remitted to another officer for re-determination.
There is no question for certification arising.
Email this Content