Docket: IMM-22634-24
Citation: 2025 FC 400
Ottawa, Ontario, March 4, 2025
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond
BETWEEN: |
IKPONMWOSA ISRAEL OSAGIE |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Simplified Procedure-Study Permit Pilot Project)
[1] The Applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, is seeking judicial review of the refusal of a permit to study in the post-graduate International Professional Program at the University of Calgary. A visa officer refused his application because he failed to bring evidence of sufficient financial resources.
[2] This case was dealt with in writing, on consent of the parties, as part of the Court’s Study Permit Pilot project. I am granting leave. However, I am dismissing the application. My reasons follow.
[3] On judicial review, the Court’s role is not to reweigh the evidence nor to craft reasons that the officer failed to provide. Rather, the Court’s role is to decide whether the officer’s decision was reasonable in light of the record. Officers are not required to provide lengthy or detailed reasons, as long as the Court can understand why the decision was made.
[4] Mr. Osagie argues that the officer unreasonably found that they lacked the financial resources necessary to pay for their studies. I disagree. Paragraph 220(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, states that the lack of financial resources is a sufficient reason to deny a study permit. While departmental guidelines require applicants to provide evidence of the availability of funds for the first year of studies, applicants must also show a probability of funding for future years: Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at paragraph 29; Pourmehdi Kasmaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 963 at paragraphs 3–7.
[5] Here, Mr. Osagie pre-paid a significant portion of the tuition fee for the first year of the 16-month program. He also provided a guaranteed income certificate [GIC] with a Canadian bank to cover the cost of living for the first year. Nevertheless, the officer was entitled to look into the availability of funds to cover Mr. Osagie’s living expenses for the last term of the program and to pay the remainder of the tuition fees.
[6] In this regard, Mr. Osagie provided a letter of support from his father, various documents showing that his father is an attorney and owns a business, and his father’s bank statement. The officer noted that “there is limited evidence to establish employment and source of income/earnings”
and that the bank statements showed “unexplained lump sum deposits.”
In my view, given the evidence, the officer reasonably found that “the source of funds is poorly documented.”
While the bank statement shows a closing balance of approximately $15,000, it also shows significant withdrawals and deposits, which caused the balance to come close to zero at times. As the officer noted, there is little evidence showing that funds would be available to Mr. Osagie to cover his remaining expenses.
[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
JUDGMENT in IMM-22634-24
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1. Leave to bring the application for judicial review is granted.
2. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
3. There is no question of general importance for certification.
"Sébastien Grammond"
Email this Content