Docket: IMM-9951-22
Citation: 2024 FC 752
Ottawa, Ontario, May 16, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
ANJOLAOLUWA ELIZABETH OJO |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Anjolaoluwa Ojo, a minor, applied to study for a social worker diploma at Georgian College in Ontario. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refused her application, finding that she had not established that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
[2] A key basis for the Officer’s refusal was proof of financial resources. Ms. Ojo argues that the Officer’s determination on financial resources is not responsive to the evidence in the record. I agree. Given that the ability to fund her studies and living expenses was a core ground on which the application was refused, this is a sufficient basis to order that the matter be redetermined.
[3] The Officer noted that Ms. Ojo’s mother’s proof of funds showed “low savings.”
There was no further explanation for this statement. The letter and statements provided indicate that Ms. Ojo’s mother had approximately $58, 000 in savings. Respondent’s counsel provided additional explanation at the judicial review hearing, arguing that the currency conversion was not accurate. As noted by Justice Little in Zibadel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 285 at paragraph 48: “I cannot impose my own view of the circumstances, buttress the reasons with my own, or guess what the officer must have been thinking.”
I have to consider the reasons that the Officer provided. There is no assessment of the financial evidence in the record, other than the conclusion that it is “low savings.”
[4] The Officer also found that though the application was supported by Ms. Ojo’s aunt in Canada, there was no proof of relationship provided. The Applicant had provided a letter from her aunt that set out their relationship. Ms. Ojo’s aunt also provided financial records, including her 2021 T4 slip and a confirmation of employment. None of these documents are mentioned by the Officer. Given the centrality of these documents to the core issue, the Court is left not knowing whether they were considered in the Officer’s determination that no proof of relationship provided or with respect to the finding that there was inadequate financial support for Ms. Ojo’s stay in Canada.
[5] Overall, I am not satisfied that the Officer meaningfully considered the evidence in the record on core issues raised by the application (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 125–128). The decision is therefore unreasonable and requires redetermination.
[6] Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.
Email this Content