Docket: IMM-1432-24
Citation: 2024 FC 2032
Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald
BETWEEN: |
JULIET MABONG KOLAWOLE |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Mrs. Kolawole [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a visa officer’s refusal to grant her a student visa. She is a citizen of Nigeria who wanted to enroll in Oulton College in Moncton, New Brunswick, in order to pursue studies in a two-year nursing program.
[2] The key reasons for the Visa Officer’s [Officer] refusal are that:
-The Officer was not satisfied that she had sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to pay the tuition fees for the course;
-The Officer was not satisfied that she had sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to maintain herself during the proposed period of study;
-The Officer was not satisfied that she had sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to pay the cost of transporting herself to and from Canada.
-The Officer was not satisfied that she would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay.
[3] The only issue in this case is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable. A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8 [Mason]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99; Mason at para 59). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 125–126; Mason at para 73).
[4] In this case, the Applicant submits that the Officer failed to consider evidence that she had already pre-paid her tuition fees for the entirety of the program, that the GCMS notes accept that she had an amount of $ 40,500 in available funds, and that she already had a multiple-entry visa in Canada. In her view, the fact that she had a multiple-entry visa and had already visited Canada without staying beyond the duration of her authorization rebuts the Officer’s conclusion that they were not satisfied that the Applicant would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay.
[5] First, the Applicant has included in her Application Record new evidence that was not put before the Officer. That evidence cannot be considered by the Court on judicial review, as it fails to meet the three recognized exceptions to the rule as set out in Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paragraphs 19–20.
[6] On the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision, an applicant bears the onus of providing an officer with all relevant documentation to support their case and to satisfy the officer that they will not remain in Canada once their visa has expired (Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at para 11 [Aghvamiamoli]). An applicant always has the onus to “put their best foot forward”
and provide all necessary information in support of their application. There is no obligation on an officer to notify an applicant of the weaknesses in their application, by way of a fairness letter, if an applicant has not met their burden to obtain a student visa and leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay (Aghvamiamoli at paras 19–20).
[7] On the issue of the pre-paid tuition fees, the record before the Officer did not demonstrate that the fees were pre-paid. The letter of acceptance that was placed before the Officer indicated that the fees were not pre-paid (Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at 60) and other documents before the Officer also indicated that a balance was owing (CTR at 63, 65). While a bill or invoice from Oulton College could be interpreted as indicating that the tuition fees were pre-paid (CTR at 62), the document is unclear. In light of the conflicting evidence presented in the other documents, it was reasonable for the Officer not to be satisfied that the fees were pre-paid in their entirety.
[8] On the GCMS notes indicating that she had $ 40,500 in available funds, there is no indication from the record as to whether this amount was accepted by the Officer as being funds available to the Applicant. That amount appears to have been taken from the Applicant’s study permit application form (CTR at 7). Rather, the Officer concludes that the funds that have been adduced into evidence are not from the Applicant’s own income, but from a third party that is a family-owned corporation. While the Applicant is a non-controlling shareholder of the corporation, there is no evidence from the sponsor (the corporation or her husband), such as a statement or a board resolution, demonstrating that the funds are available to the Applicant. When the funds required to pursue studies in Canada originate from a sponsor, evidence of financial capacity from the sponsor and a letter of support of that person or organization (including employment letter, bank statements, proof of real estate property, etc.) is necessary to demonstrate an applicant’s financial support (Aghvamiamoli at paras 28–29; see also Noulengbe v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1116 at paras 17–18). In this case, the Applicant did not provide any evidence from the corporate sponsor (such as a board resolution), nor a letter from her husband clearly demonstrating that the necessary funds are available to her. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Officer to not be satisfied that the Applicant had sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to maintain herself during the proposed period of study.
[9] On the issue of the Officer not being satisfied that the Applicant would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay despite her open visa to travel into Canada and history of travelling to Canada, I agree with the Applicant that the Officer failed to provide adequate reasons to justify the decision. Even if visa officers are not required to provide exhaustive reasons on each element, this does not relieve them from the need to address evidence that contradicts important aspects of their decision (Mahdavi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 629 at para 19; Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), [1998] FCJ No 1425). In this case, the Applicant provided evidence of an existing open visa to travel into Canada, and had a history of travelling to Canada without staying beyond the duration of her authorization.
[10] Nevertheless, even if the Officer’s decision is unreasonable in relation to their conclusion on the Applicant’s intention to depart Canada at the end of her authorized stay, the Officer’s decision is reasonable in relation to the sufficiency of the Applicant’s financial support. That consideration, on its own, is sufficient to justify the Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s application for a study permit (Aghvamiamoli at para 36; Mohammadhosseini v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 848 at paras 31–32; Mohammadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 598 at 21).
[11] Moreover, in the circumstances, having considered the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant had not demonstrated that she would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay does not constitute a sufficient shortcoming to cause the Court to lose confidence in the outcome reached by the Officer (Vavilov at paras 100, 106, 122, 194).
[12] For these reasons, Mrs. Kolawole’s application for judicial review is dismissed.
[13] There is no question of general importance for certification.
Email this Content