Docket: IMM-3780-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1966
Calgary, Alberta, December 4, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed
BETWEEN: |
TEMITOPE FUNSO KOLADE |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered orally from the bench on December 4, 2024, and subject to stylistic, editorial, and syntax edits, as well as reference to jurisprudence and legal citations)
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision made by an officer (the “Officer”
) of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”
) refusing his application for a study permit pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”
). The Officer determined that the Applicant misrepresented a material aspect of his application by failing to explain a fee reversal on his account.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria who sought entry to Canada to pursue a graduate program at the University of Saskatchewan. The Officer refused his study permit application because he failed to explain why the application fee for a previous study permit had been reversed, causing the Applicant to owe a debt to the Crown. The Applicant states that he prepared a response explaining that his immigration consultant, Mr. Wale Raheem, had reversed the fee without informing him (the “Applicant’s Response”
). However, the Officer did not receive the Applicant’s Response and concluded that he had simply misrepresented the fee reversal.
[3] As a preliminary note, the Applicant’s memorandum states that the Officer “failed to observe principle[s] of natural justice”
and “procedural fairness.”
However, the Applicant did not bring submissions about these issues. Consequently, I find that the Applicant has failed to make a case that his procedural rights were breached.
[4] The sole issue in this application is therefore whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”
)). I find that it is.
[5] The Officer did not receive the Applicant’s Response and it could not be located in the email inbox, webform, web portal, or physical mailboxes of the visa office that processed the Applicant’s application. The Applicant also did not bring proof that his response was received. In sum, nothing was before the Officer to explain the chargeback or why the Applicant did not disclose his debt. It was therefore reasonable for the Officer to conclude that the Applicant had committed misrepresentation. The Officer cannot be faulted for failing to grapple with material they did not have.
[6] In any event, the Applicant’s Response does not justify overturning the refusal decision. The Applicant states that Mr. Raheem failed to alert him about IRCC’s inquiries and impersonated the Applicant to IRCC. However, an applicant may be held accountable for misrepresentation based on false information provided by an immigration consultant, as it is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure their application is “truthful and complete”
(Khoei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 421 at para 44). Additionally, the innocent mistake exception “is narrow and applies only to truly extraordinary circumstances”
(Goburdhun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 971 at para 28). The Applicant has not demonstrated that such circumstances exist in this case.
[7] I dismiss this application for judicial review. The decision is justified in light of its legal and factual constraints (Vavilov at para 101).
Email this Content