Docket: IMM-3305-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1044
Toronto, Ontario, July 3, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed
BETWEEN: |
AREZOO KOULAJI SHAHABALDIN KHOSRAVI KABIR ARSHAM KHOSRAVI KABIR, BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN AREZOO KOULAJI |
Applicants |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered Orally from the Bench on July 3, 2024, and subject to stylistic, editorial, and syntax edits, as well as reference to jurisprudence and legal citations)
[1] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision refusing the Principal Applicant a study permit.
[2] The Applicants are an Iranian family. The Principal Applicant sought to come to Canada to study at Trinity Western University. Her application was refused pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”
). The Officer was not satisfied she had sufficient funds for her studies, nor that she had sufficiently strong or documented family ties to warrant a return to Iran. The Officer also noted that her lack of travel history could be a “gauge”
for past compliance with immigration laws.
[3] The issues in this application are whether the officer’s decision is reasonable and was rendered in a procedurally fair manner.
[4] I find that the decision is reasonable. The Principal Applicant did not provide copies of her bank transactions. The Officer was therefore entitled to find that there was a lack of objective evidence to establish the source of the Principal Applicant’s funds (see Roodsari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 970 at para 33). The Applicants’ arguments about other evidence establishing the source and availability of funds is simply an impermissible request for the Court to reweigh the evidence (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 125).
[5] The Officer was also entitled to find, in the context of the decision, that having the Principal Applicant’s immediate family accompany her to Canada would weaken her ties to her home country in Iran (Zaeri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 638 at para 4, citing Sayyar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 494 at para 15). There is nothing in the decision to show, as the Applicants suggest, that the Officer did not consider the Applicants’ other ties in Iran. They have not displaced the presumption that the Officer considered all of the evidence (Roodafshani v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2024 FC 595 at para 8 [citations omitted]). They have also not established that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
[6] I also find that the decision was rendered in a procedurally fair manner. The Officer’s concerns with the Applicants leaving Canada at the end of the authorized stay and the availability and sufficiency of funds are concerns that arise directly from sections 179(b), 200(1)(b), 216(1)(b), and 220 of the IRPR, and there was therefore no procedural obligation to request further evidence (Sani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 396 at para 38 [citations omitted]).
[7] This application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
Email this Content