Hadian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 414

Date: 20250306

Docket: IMM-3881-23

Citation: 2025 FC 414

Toronto, Ontario, March 6, 2025

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant, a 24-year-old citizen from Iran, seek judicial review of the decision of a visa officer [Officer] refusing the Applicant’s application for a study permit pursuant to section 216(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], to pursue a two-year diploma in “Architectural Technician” at George Brown College in Toronto, Ontario.

[2] The Applicant’s study permit was denied by letter dated March 20, 2023, wherein the Officer stated that the study permit was refused as the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay as required by paragraph 216(1)(b) of the IRPR. Two factors supporting this conclusion were identified by the Officer: (i) the Applicant’s assets and financial situation were insufficient to support the stated purpose of the Applicant’s travel; and (ii) the purpose of the Applicant’s visit to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay given the information the Applicant had provided in his application.

[3] The Officer’s decision is largely contained in their Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form part of the reasons for decision. The GCMS notes provide:

I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. No detail bank statement submitted to check movement of funds on the account. In the absence of satisfactory documentation showing the source of these funds, I am not satisfied the PA has sufficient funds for the intended purpose. PA is applying to study diploma in Architectural Technician. Previous education: Bachelors [sic] in Civil Engineering. The client has previous studies at a higher academic level than the proposed studies in Canada. Chosen program at such expense appears illogical in light of the PA’s reported scholarly history. Employment letter noted, no indication of promotion or offer for higher poosition [sic] upon completion of the program. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.

[4] On this application, the Applicant challenges both the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision and the fairness of the process that led to it. The substance of the Officer’s decision is reviewable on a reasonableness standard. When reviewing for reasonableness, the Court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified. 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 [see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85]. The Court will intervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [see Adeniji-Adele v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 418 at para 11].

[5] Turning to the substance of the decision, the Applicant has asserted that the decision is unreasonable on a number of grounds. However, I find that it is only necessary to consider the reasonableness of the Officer’s finding that the Applicant did not establish that he had sufficient and available financial resources. The Applicant asserts that the Officer’s determination in this regard was unreasonable, as he had provided extensive evidence to demonstrate both his personal assets and the significant assets of his parents. The Applicant further asserts that the Officer’s reasons fail to justify this determination given the evidence before them.

[6] While the Applicant included in his application one-page bank account balance certificates for accounts held by him, his father, his mother and his brother, as well as various deeds for real property held by the family, the Officer’s concern was the Applicant’s failure to provide detailed bank statements to verify both the movement of the funds in the accounts and the source of the funds.

[7] It must be recalled that section 220 of the IRPR states that an Officer shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national unless the person seeking the permit has “sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada,” to pay the costs of the proposed program of study, to maintain themselves in Canada, and to pay the costs of transportation for themselves and any accompanying family members to and from Canada.

[8] In addition to the express requirements of section 220 of the IRPR, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] provides an application guide that instructs Iranian applicants on what to provide in support of a study permit application, including bank statements showing a transaction history for the last six months [see Study Permit – Ankara Visa Office Instructions, IMM 5816 E (10-2024)]. Despite these instructions, the Applicant did not provide this information. He did not offer any explanation for why he did not follow IRCC’s instructions, nor did he provide any other information to demonstrate the sources of the funds in the bank accounts.

[9] While the Applicant included detailed bank statements showing the required transaction history in his application record on this judicial review, I am satisfied that those statements were not before the Officer and thus are not properly before the Court on this application. As such, they will not be considered.

[10] Bank transaction histories can help to demonstrate the source and stability of an applicant’s funds [see Salamat v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 545 at para 7]. This Court has repeatedly held that the absence of this information can be a reasonable basis to find that an applicant has not established that they have sufficient and available funds, as required [see Sayyar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 494 at para 12; Najaran v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 541 at paras 4–8; Salamat, supra at paras 8–11; Mohammadhosseini v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 848 at paras 26–27; Hendabadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 987 at paras 22–29; Moradian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1343 at paras 5–7]. In the absence of the bank transaction histories, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated that the Officer’s determination was unreasonable.

[11] The Applicant takes issue with the sufficiency of the Officer’s reasons, arguing that their failure to refer to the support to be provided by the Applicant’s parents, the fully paid tuition and the various properties owned by the Applicant and his parents, suggests that the Officer failed to properly consider this evidence. In that regard, the Applicant notes that the Officer only referred to “the account” when there was evidence of multiple accounts before them.

[12] I find that there is no merit to this submission. The Officer’s duty to provide reasons on a study permit application is minimal, in recognition of the institutional context in which such decisions are made — namely, the high volume of study permits and other visas that must be processed in Canada’s missions [see Afuah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 596 at para 9]. The Officer is presumed to have reviewed all of the evidence on an application and need not refer to all of the evidence before them in their reasons (unless such evidence contradicts a finding made by the Officer). Here, the banking evidence provided by the Applicant’s parents suffered from the same flaw as the Applicant’s banking evidence. It too did not include six months of transaction histories, which is a requirement set out in the guide for those who commit to supporting an applicant during the course of their studies. The remaining financial evidence provided by the Applicant did not contradict, and was further not relevant to, the Officer’s concern regarding the source and movement of the funds in the account.

[13] The Officer’s finding regarding the sufficiency and availability of financial resources was, on its own, a sufficient basis upon which to refuse the Applicant’s study permit application [see Moradian, supra at para 10]. As such, I need not consider the Applicant’s additional arguments related to the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision.

[14] Breaches of procedural fairness have been considered reviewable on a correctness standard or subject to a “reviewing exercise […] ‘best reflected in the correctness standard’ even though, strictly speaking, no standard of review is being applied” [see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54]. The duty of procedural fairness is “eminently variable,” inherently flexible and context-specific. It must be determined with reference to all the circumstances, including the Baker factors [see Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 77]. A court assessing a procedural fairness question is required to ask whether the procedure was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances [see Canadian Pacific Railway Company, supra at para 54].

[15] The Applicant asserts that his procedural fairness rights were breached in various ways. However, I find that none of the Applicant’s assertions have any merit.

[16] The Applicant asserts that his procedural fairness rights were breached in that the Officer was obligated to give the Applicant an opportunity to address the Officer’s concerns regarding the sufficiency of the financial information provided. However, I find that the Officer had no such obligation. This Court has repeatedly and consistently held that the duty of procedural fairness owed to a study permit applicant is at the low end of the spectrum and that a visa officer has no general obligation to advise an applicant of concerns that arise from the application of the IRPA or the IRPR [see Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 517 at para 12; Davoodabadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 85 at para 19, citing Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 855 at para 22; Rukmangathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 284 at para 23]. An applicant’s obligation to demonstrate that they have funds that will be sufficient and available to them for their tuition, expenses, and travel, arises directly from section 220 of the IRPR. The Applicant had the onus to file sufficient evidence to satisfy the Officer that he met the requirements of section 220 and was not owed another opportunity to do so before the Officer concluded that he had not met those requirements.

[17] Moreover, contrary to the Applicant’s suggestion, no veiled credibility findings were made by the Officer that might trigger an obligation to give notice of their concerns and by extension the Applicant an opportunity to respond to them. The decision turned on the sufficiency of the evidence, not the credibility of the Applicant. Further, the Applicant’s suggestion that the Officer relied on undisclosed extrinsic evidence in reaching their decision is simply baseless.

[18] As the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable or that he was denied procedural fairness, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed.

[19] No question for certification was raised and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3881-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises.

“Mandy Aylen”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: