Docket: IMM-1965-24
Citation: 2024 FC 2049
Ottawa, Ontario, December 17, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
ARMIN NASIMI |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Mr. Armin Nasimi, applied for a permit to study at a university in Montreal. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer”
) refused the application on January 24, 2024. Mr. Nasimi challenges this refusal on judicial review.
[2] The Officer refused the application on the basis of family ties and sufficiency and availability of finances. Mr. Nasimi has not satisfied me that the Officer’s determination regarding his financial resources is unreasonable. The Officer’s determination on financial resources is dispositive of the judicial review because the requirement set out in section 220 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] provides that a study permit shall not be issued unless there are sufficient and available financial resources (Davoodabadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 85 at paras 15-16; Mohebban v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 819 at para 34). As I have found the Officer’s determination on financial resources to be reasonable, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[3] The requirement that an officer be satisfied that a person applying to study in Canada will not overstay the period authorized for their stay is set out in subsections 11(1) and 20(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 and in paragraph 216(1)(b) of the IRPR.
[4] Section 220 of the IRPR provides that an officer “shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national […] unless they have sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to (a) pay the tuition fees for the course or program of study that they intend to pursue; (b) maintain themselves and any family members who are accompanying them during their proposed period of study; and (c) pay the costs of transporting themselves and the family members […] to and from Canada.”
The publicly available instructions for those applying for study permits from Iran ask that applicants provide “[c]opies of bank statements or bank book covering the past 6 months”
(Immigration Canada, Study Permit Ankara Visa Office Instructions, IMM 5816 E (Ottawa: Immigration Canada, May 2016).
[5] The Officer noted that Mr. Nasimi’s banking transaction history demonstrated “pre-existing low balances and lump sum deposits.”
The Officer was not satisfied, upon assessing the Applicant’s banking transaction history and plan of study, that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate “the history of funds accumulation,”
and that these funds would be “sufficient or available”
to support his studies.
[6] An officer can look at the source and stability of an applicant’s funds to determine whether they have “sufficient and available financial resources”
to cover the cost of studying in Canada (Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at para 29).
[7] Mr. Nasimi does not dispute the Officer’s characterization of his banking records but argues that there was other evidence in the record that established the sufficiency and availability of funds. In particular, Mr. Nasimi points to the affidavit from his father and documentation of the existence of his father’s real estate business, Mr. Nasimi’s employment letter, and property ownership documents. None of these documents assist in explaining the source of the deposits in the bank account that was provided by Mr. Nasimi as proof of his sufficient funds. The bank statements mentioned by the Officer -- which did not have any transaction activity, nor explanation for lack of activity -- are the principal source of the liquid funds available to cover the costs of study in Canada. The Officer’s concern about the sufficiency of this evidence was reasonable. The Applicant’s arguments amount to asking the Court to reweigh the evidence and find that there was in fact sufficient evidence of financial stability. This is not my role on judicial review.
[8] In these circumstances, given the limited nature of the evidence and explanation provided, and the Officer’s reasons setting out their concerns with the evidence, I am not satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated that there was a significant shortcoming in the Officer’s analysis of his financial resources (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 100). The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
Email this Content