Docket: IMM-1623-17
Citation:
2017 FC 1067
Ottawa, Ontario, November 27, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
UGOCHUKWU
DARLINGTON ONYEKA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Ugochukwu Darlington Onyeka is a Nigerian
citizen who applied for a study permit to pursue a two-year diploma in Canada.
On March 15, 2017 a Visa Officer denied his study permit application, finding
that the evidence submitted by Mr. Onyeka did not establish that he had
sufficient financial resources to pay for the program, nor did it show that he
would leave Canada at the end of his studies.
[2]
By this application, Mr. Onyeka seeks
judicial review of that decision. He contends that the Officer ignored evidence
of his sponsor’s financial situation, rendering the decision unreasonable.
Further, he asserts that he has ample family and social ties in Nigeria, and
that there was sufficient evidence on which to find that he would return to
Nigeria after completion of his studies.
[3]
For the reasons that follow, I have found that
the Officer’s decision was reasonable. Consequently, Mr. Onyeka’s
application for judicial review will be dismissed.
I.
Background
[4]
Mr. Onyeka currently resides in Nigeria.
Between 2007 and 2015, he studied and worked in the United Kingdom, returning
to Nigeria, where he was offered a position at a firm in Lagos. Mr. Onyeka
had previously been granted visitor visas to allow him to visit his sister who
resides in Canada, but he had never used them as he was unable to travel to
Canada at the time.
[5]
In February of 2017, Mr. Onyeka submitted
an application for a Canadian study permit, having been offered admission into
a two-year diploma program in Ontario. In support of his application, he
provided a letter of admission from Lambton College, proof that he had paid the
first semester’s tuition, various identity documents, a study permit
questionnaire, and evidence regarding his father’s ability to support him
financially.
II.
Decision under Review
[6]
As discussed above, Mr. Onyeka’s study
permit was declined on two grounds. First, the Officer found that Mr. Onyeka
did not have sufficient funds to pursue his program of study. Second, the
Officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his
authorized stay.
[7]
The Officer noted that Mr. Onyeka’s father
was sponsoring him financially, but that the father’s bank statements showed
insufficient funds to cover the total cost of his son’s tuition and living
expenses in Canada. The Officer observed that there were no visas or stamps
from the United Kingdom in his passport, although she appears to have accepted
that he had received a degree from a British university. That said, the Officer
noted that it was not clear why Mr. Onyeka wanted to enrol in the College program
in Canada, after receiving a university degree and working in the United
Kingdom for a year and a half.
[8]
The Officer thus concluded that the evidence had
not established that Mr. Onyeka was a genuine student who intended to complete
a course of study in Canada who would depart at the end of his authorized stay.
III.
Standard of Review
[9]
Findings of fact reached by visa officers are
subject to review on the standard of reasonableness: Dhillon v. Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 614 at para. 19, 347 F.T.R. 24. The
decision must fall within the range of acceptable outcomes that are defensible
in respect of the facts and the law: New Brunswick v. Dunsmuir, 2008 SCC
9 at para. 47 [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v.
Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para. 59, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
[10]
Moreover, visa officers have wide discretion in
assessing applications for student visas: Solopova v. Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2016 FC 690 at paras 11, 33, [2016] F.C.J. No. 662; My
Hong v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 463 at paras 10-13,
[2011] F.C.J. No. 648.
IV.
Analysis
[11]
The first issue is whether Mr. Onyeka’s
evidence showed that he had the necessary financial support to allow him to complete
his studies in Canada. Applicants for a Canadian study permit must establish
that they have the financial resources to pay the cost of travel to and from
Canada, as well as the tuition fees for the program of studies they intend to
pursue and their living expenses over the course of their program of study: Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 220.
[12]
Mr. Onyeka’s letter of admission from
Lambton College in Ontario provided a breakdown of the anticipated cost of the
program in issue. The letter estimates living expenses to be $10,080 for twelve
months, and $14,460 as the cost of tuition and fees. In order to grant the
study permit, the Officer would have therefore required evidence of at least
$24,540 in available funds for each of the two years of study, in addition to
the cost of travel to Canada.
[13]
In order to satisfy the Officer that he had
access to the required funds, Mr. Onyeka submitted an affidavit from his
father and financial sponsor, Mr. Francis Onyeka. In his affidavit, the
father provided a list of properties that he claimed to own in Nigeria,
estimating their value at over $733,000. He also provided a letter of support
from his bank, certificates of occupancy for the properties in question,
certificates of incorporation for Nigerian companies, a receipt from Lambton
College showing that he made a $7,350 tuition payment, and bank statements
showing that he had $16,915 on deposit. The father further stated in his
affidavit of sponsorship that he had five dependents.
[14]
Of this collection of financial evidence, only a
narrow set was relevant for the Officer’s purposes. Certificates of
incorporation do not demonstrate a person’s cash flow. Certificates of
Occupancy do not show mortgages that may be on properties, and they therefore
do not establish the equity in these properties. Further, it is not clear that
the sponsor could sell or would be willing to sell these properties if
necessary.
[15]
Mr. Onyeka argued in his written
submissions that the evidence established his father’s net worth at $2.5 million
and that he received $150,000 in annual income. At the hearing, Mr. Onyeka
conceded that the record did not include evidence regarding his father’s annual
income. Moreover, as discussed, his sworn statement regarding property
ownership did not establish his net worth as being $2.5 million.
[16]
The two pieces of evidence that are the most
pertinent to the question at hand are the evidence that Mr. Onyeka’s
father had paid the first semester of tuition for Lambton College in the amount
of $7,350, and the bank statements showing that he had $16,915 in savings. This
evidence showed that Mr. Onyeka’s father could theoretically pay a total
of $24,265, which was a few hundred dollars short of the total amount required
for one of the two years of studies, without including travel costs.
[17]
Moreover, Mr. Onyeka’s father has five
dependents. The amount required for his son’s studies in Canada would exhaust
his entire bank balance, leaving nothing for his personal needs much less the
needs of his other dependents. It was therefore open to the Officer to
determine that Mr. Onyeka’s father did not have sufficient funds available
to him to support his son’s course of study.
[18]
The second issue is whether the Officer’s
determination that Mr. Onyeka was not a genuine student who would leave
Canada at the end of his authorized stay was reasonable.
[19]
The Applicant submits that Mr. Onyeka has
social and family ties to Nigeria, that he had studied abroad in the past, and
that there was a clear connection between his career and his proposed area of
study. While these assertions may be true, the evidence before the Officer did
not establish these facts.
[20]
While Mr. Onyeka’s parents and two siblings
remain in Nigeria, one of his siblings is in Canada, another is in South
Africa, and Mr. Onyeka previously spent eight years in the United Kingdom.
Based on this evidence, it was open to the Officer to conclude that Mr. Onyeka’s
ties to his home country were limited.
[21]
Moreover, Mr. Onyeka did not submit an
affidavit or statement explaining why he was pursuing this particular course of
study. He did, however, fill out a Study Permit Questionnaire with brief
answers. For example, the Questionnaire asked: “Do you
have any academic prerequisites or work experience relevant to the program? If
so, please list and provide.” The Applicant replied “No.” The Questionnaire asked, “How does your selected program differ from similar programs
available in Nigeria?” The Applicant replied “More
research tools available.”
[22]
Without any further information from Mr. Onyeka,
it was open to the Officer to determine that his proposed course of study
raised concerns, especially considering that Mr. Onyeka had himself stated
that he had no experience relevant to his course of study. Considering the thin
record that was before the Officer, the conclusion that Mr. Onyeka had not
established that he was a bona fide student who intended to return to
Nigeria at the end of his authorized stay was reasonable.
V.
Conclusion
[23]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review is dismissed. I agree with the parties that the case is fact-specific
and does not raise a question that is suitable for certification.
Email this Content