Docket: IMM-18359-24
Citation: 2025 FC 369
Ottawa, Ontario, February 25, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Fuhrer
BETWEEN: |
FUNMILOLA BEATRICE OLOWOLAFE |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Simplified Procedure-Study Permit Pilot Project)
[1] This is an application under the Study Permit Pilot Project on behalf of the Applicant pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], for leave to commence an application for judicial review of a decision of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] dated August 26, 2024 bearing file number S306623280 [Decision].
[2] The Court grants leave to commence the application for judicial review.
[3] The Court also grants the judicial review application for the reasons below.
[4] The Decision indicates that IRCC refused the Applicant’s study permit application because the officer was not satisfied the Applicant will leave Canada at the end of her stay, as required by paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2022-227, finding more specifically insufficient assets and financial situation to support the Applicant’s stated purpose of travel, and that the purpose of her visit is inconsistent with a temporary stay.
[5] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes provide clarification of the more specific factors considered by the officer in refusing the study permit application.
[6] The parties dispute whether the officer ignored or considered the Applicant’s seemingly contradictory evidence regarding financial sustainability for the intended study in Canada. I agree with the Applicant that the officer ignored evidence that contradicts the officer’s findings.
[7] For example, the GCMS notes state, “The applicant is self-funded and has provided a bank statement (Microfinance) showing a high initial balance.”
[8] The Applicant’s proof of funds evidence, however, shows a different financial institution, namely, Cooperative Mortgage Bank Limited. Further, the “Banker’s Letter of Reference”
states, “We are insured by the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) and regulated as a Primary Mortgage Institution (PMI) and not a Microfinance Bank (MFB)…” (emphasis added).
[9] On their face, the GCMS notes indicate a fundamental misapprehension about the Applicant’s banking information and the Court cannot assess the extent to which this misapprehension factored into the Decision: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 126.
[10] As another example, the GCMS notes indicate that, “the financial information lacks supporting documentation, such as reported revenue or income tax payments, to justify the account balances.”
This statement is indicative, on its face, that other supporting documentation may be acceptable (i.e. “such as”
). In my view, based on this statement, it is not evident that the supporting documentation the Applicant provided was considered.
[11] In the circumstances, I find that the Applicant has met her onus of showing that the Decision lacks the requisite justification, transparency and intelligibility required by Vavilov (above at paras 10, 25, 99, 100) to survive judicial scrutiny.
[12] The judicial review application thus will be granted, with the Decision set aside and the matter remitted to a different decision maker for redetermination.
[13] Given the structure of the Study Permit Pilot Project, I note that there is no question for certification pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA.
Email this Content