Cervjakova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1186

Date: 20190917

Docket: IMM-6344-18

Citation: 2019 FC 1186

Toronto, Ontario, September 17, 2019

PRESENT:  The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1]  Mrs. Tatiana Cervjakova (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a visa officer (the “Officer”) refusing her application for a study permit.

[2]  That application was made pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 21 (the “Act”) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”).

[3]  The Applicant argues that the Officer unreasonably refused her application for a study permit and, among other things, ignored relevant evidence.

[4]  The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Applicant failed to produce evidence to support her application and the refusal by the Officer was reasonable.

[5]  The decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Akomolafe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 472 at paragraph 9.

[6]  According to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be justifiable, transparent and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible on the law and the facts.

[7]  In my opinion, the Officer’s decision fails to meet the applicable standard of review.

[8]  I am not satisfied that the Officer reasonably considered the evidence submitted by the Applicant.

[9]  The Officer, in my opinion, carried out a perfunctory assessment following the Applicant’s successful challenge, by judicial review, to the first refusal of her application for a study permit; see the decision in Cervjakova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1052.

[10]  In the result, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different officer for re-determination.

[11]  There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT in IMM-6344-18

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter remitted to a different officer for re-determination; there is no question for certification arising.

“E. Heneghan”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: