Docket: IMM-1891-24
Citation: 2025 FC 409
Toronto, Ontario, March 5, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
ONYEBUCHI NKEMDIRIM EKWOANYA |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Onyebuchi Nkemdirim Ekwoanya [the Applicant], is a citizen of Nigeria who applied for a study permit to pursue his Bachelor of Arts at the University of Manitoba. The Visa Officer [the Officer] who rejected his application [the Decision] was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay because the Applicant had failed to show that he had sufficient and available financial resources to pay his tuition and living expenses for the course of his studies.
[2] This is an application for judicial review of the Decision.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this application as I find the Officer’s Decision to be reasonable and the allegations of procedural unfairness to be unfounded. The Applicant failed to satisfy his evidentiary burden to show that he met the statutory requirements under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act] and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations SOR/2002-227 [Regulations].
II. Legislative Framework
[4] Pursuant to subsection 11(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Act and paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Regulations, an officer issuing a study permit to a foreign national must be satisfied that a person applying to study in Canada will not overstay the period authorized for their stay.
[5] Section 220 of the Regulations provides that an officer shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national unless they have sufficient and available financial resources to both pay their tuition for the course of their studies as well as their costs of living and travel to and from Canada without working in Canada.
III. Facts
A. The Applicant’s Background
[6] The Applicant is a Nigerian businessman who has been the Managing Director and majority shareholder of a construction company since 2015. He has held management positions dating back to 2007. In furtherance of his stated desire to develop his management skills and critical thinking and expand his perspective, the Applicant applied for and was accepted into year two of a four-year Bachelor of Arts program at the University of Manitoba.
B. The Applicant’s Study Permit Application
[7] The Applicant applied for a study permit in November 2023 [the Application]. The Application indicated that the Applicant had set aside $100,000 for his studies in Canada. The Application was supported by personal bank statements from the Guaranty Trust Bank in Nigeria, documents showing a prepaid tuition deposit, his marriage certificate, his daughter’s birth certificate, and an evaluation report for the Applicant’s property in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. It was agreed by both parties that the Applicant’s documentation disclosed the Canadian dollar equivalent of $45,000 whereas the estimated costs of the Applicant’s three-year program came to over $100,000.
C. The Decision
[8] The Officer’s reasons for denying the Applicant’s study permit are found in the accompanying Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes. The Officer noted the limited evidence provided by the Applicant to show the source and availability of the funds reserved for the Applicant’s studies, which led the Officer to have concerns that the funds would be available. The Officer concluded that the Applicant had failed to meet his onus to show that he met the requirements of the Act and the Regulations, leaving the Officer to doubt that the Applicant will leave Canada at the end of his studies.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[9] The Applicant has raised a number of issues related to the reasonableness of the Decision as well as issues of procedural fairness:
Was it unreasonable for the Officer to find that the Applicant’s financial evidence was insufficient?
Was it unreasonable and unfair for the Officer not to consider other evidence that supports an intent to return to Nigeria?
Was it procedurally unfair for the Officer not to request additional documents and allow the Applicant to respond to the Officer’s concerns?
Does the Officer’s Decision demonstrate bias?
[10] The applicable standard of review of the merits of the Decision is that of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16-17, 23-25 [Vavilov]). A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker (Vavilov at para 85). Judicial review is not an exercise in redetermining the underlying decision, nor does it allow for a reweighing of the evidence that was before the decision maker (Vavilov at paras 75, 83, 125).
[11] Issues of procedural fairness, on the other hand, are reviewed on a standard akin to correctness (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras 34-35, 54-55 [Canadian Pacific], citing Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). The Court’s task is to ensure that those affected by a decision understood the case they had to meet and had the opportunity to respond to it before an impartial decision maker (Canadian Pacific at para 41).
V. Analysis
A. The Officer’s finding that the Applicant’s financial documentation was insufficient is reasonable
[12] The Applicant makes two arguments challenging the reasonableness of the Officer’s finding that the Applicant’s financial documentation was insufficient.
[13] First, the Applicant submits that his documentation met the requirements of the Regulations given that the information guidelines found on the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada website state that an applicant is only required to provide proof of funds for the first year of tuition and an additional $10,000 for living expenses.
[14] The Applicant acknowledges that Justice Strickland considered this same argument in Sani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 396 at para 27 [Sani]) and rejected it, holding that the statutory requirement at section 220 of the Regulations clearly requires an applicant to demonstrate sufficient and available financial resources to pay the tuition fees and living expenses for the duration of the intended course of studies (Sani at para 25). The Applicant argues, however, that this Court is not bound by the decision in Sani as it is merely persuasive. I do not agree. While not strictly binding in the same way as vertical stare decisis, decisions of the same court should be followed as a matter of judicial comity (R v Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19 at para 65), and I see no reasoned basis to depart from the decision in Sani.
[15] Second, the Applicant argues that the Officer failed to adequately explain why information going to the source of his funds was necessary. I find this submission is also without merit. The Officer’s GCMS notes state:
Limited evidence pertaining to the source on [sic] stated funds. Financial information is not supported with an employment contract, payslips, reported revenue from business operations, or evidence of income tax paid to support the account balances on file. As earned income is not clear, there is limited evidence showing how the sponsor came to accumulate such large savings. Based on the documentation on file and the limited information demonstrating the source and availability of the funds, I have concerns that the funds shown would be available for the proposed studies.
[16] The Officer’s explanation is detailed and clearly relates to the statutory requirement to show financial readiness. The Officer’s reasons are also consistent with prior decisions of this Court that confirm that it is reasonable for officers to look beyond bank balances and consider the source, nature, and stability of the funds presented and the corresponding banking transaction history behind them to determine future ability to pay tuition and living expenses (Sani at para 27 and Moradian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1343 at paras 7-9).
[17] The Applicant’s suggestion that the Officer should have inferred financial ability and readiness merely from the Applicant’s position as the Managing Partner of his business is not persuasive. As the Officer pointed out, the Applicant provided no evidence showing how the Applicant’s finances relate to the company, as there were no pay slips or financial statements provided.
B. The Officer did not fail to consider other documents
[18] The Applicant submits that the Officer erred in failing to consider crucial evidence of his intent to return to Nigeria, including: (i) his “clear expression of intent”
contained in his introduction letter; (ii) evidence that his wife and daughter would remain in Nigeria; and (iii) the Applicant’s “substantial property ownership”
in Nigeria. The Applicant has raised this as a matter going to both the reasonableness (citing Catalyst Paper Corp v North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2) and procedural fairness of the Decision based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation and the Applicant’s expectation that all evidence would be considered.
[19] I do not consider the Officer’s failure to mention the Applicant’s evidence of his family ties to Nigeria to be unreasonable given that the determinative issue for the Officer’s refusal relates to the Applicant’s failure to demonstrate his financial ability, which is a legislative requirement under the Regulations (Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at para 29). As Justice Strickland noted in Sani, where the requirement under section 220 of the Regulations is not met, an officer has no discretion to issue a study visa (Sani at para 25). Nor is the Applicant’s statement of intention sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements (Abbas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 378 at para 20), making the Officer’s failure to expressly refer to it justified.
[20] The Applicant’s reliance on the principle of legitimate expectation, which derives from the requirements of procedural fairness, is misplaced. This principle considers whether a public entity or official has, by its conduct, led an individual to expect that a process would be conducted in a certain manner, in which case the Court will honour the individual’s expectation. However, as Justice Walker (as she then was) noted in Masam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 751 [Masam], the principle is procedural only and does not create substantive rights. The Applicant’s assertion of his legitimate expectation as a substantive right is fatal to his argument (Masam at paras 15-16).
C. It was not procedurally unfair for the Officer not to request further documents or allow the Applicant to respond to the Officer’s concerns
[21] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s concern over the source of the Applicant’s available funds amounts to a concern with the credibility of the Applicant’s evidence, which requires the Officer to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to respond to those concerns.
[22] I see no basis for this characterization of the Officer’s reasons as going to an issue of credibility. In this case, the Officer’s concerns related directly to the financial requirements of the Regulations. Moreover, the Applicant’s complaint that he was unaware of the need to provide his company’s financial records was not an error that is attributable to the Officer; the onus is on an applicant to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Act and Regulations, and the Officer was under no obligation either to draw the Applicant’s attention to the deficiencies in his application nor to provide him with an opportunity to address them (Huang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 145 at para 7).
D. The Officer has not been shown to have exhibited bias
[23] Procedural fairness requires that decisions be made free from a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of decision makers (Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at para 45). The threshold for establishing a reasonable apprehension of bias is a high one (R v RDS, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para 113) and requires that the Applicant show that a reasonable and informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically—and having thought the matter through—would conclude that it is more likely than not that the decision maker, whether consciously or not, would not decide the matter fairly (Committee for Justice and Liberty et al v National Energy Board et al, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369 at 394-395).
[24] The Applicant alleges that the Officer made “a bold and contradictory assertions [
sic] about the Applicant’s opening balance purportedly from applicant’s statement of account”
despite the fact that the document was signed and stamped by an appropriate officer of the bank. The Applicant alleges that the GCMS notes “do not disclose the existence of an open-mind or a weighing of the particular circumstances of the case free from stereotypes”
and that the Officer’s own “frustrations”
interfered with the Officer’s duty to “consider impartially whether the applicant’s had all the money in the world or not.”
According to the Applicant:
“Reading the Respondent Officer’s GCMS note, It [sic] is submitted that no reasonable and well-informed member of the community would conclude that the Officer had approached this case with the impartiality appropriate to a decision made by an immigration officer.”
[25] I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant has wholly failed to substantiate this serious allegation which stems from his mere disagreement with the Officer’s Decision that his financial documentation is insufficient. There is simply no support in any reading of the GCMS notes to find the slightest hint of either a closed-minded approach, frustration, or stereotype. Baseless allegations of bias like these are improper (Anwar v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 7 at para 6).
VI. Conclusion
[26] This application is dismissed as the Applicant has not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable or that the process followed by the Officer in denying his study permit was unfair.
Email this Content