Docket: IMM-7320-24
Citation: 2025 FC 490
Toronto, Ontario, March 17, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed
BETWEEN: |
MUNACHI FRANKLIN AMADI |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered orally from the bench on March 17, 2025, 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 visa officer’s refusal of his application for a study permit pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”
).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria. He seeks entry into Canada to pursue a master’s degree in mechanical engineering at the University of Windsor. On April 10, 2024, the officer refused his application. The officer was not satisfied the Applicant would depart Canada as stated in paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Regulations because his assets and financial situation were insufficient, he did not have significant family ties outside Canada, and the purpose of his visit was not consistent with a temporary stay.
[3] The sole issue in this application is whether the officer’s decision is reasonable. I find it is not.
[4] The Applicant rightly notes that the officer ignored material evidence on the record. In his application, the Applicant provided a letter from his sponsor and a statement of purpose, in which he described the close family relationship and history of financial support between him and his sponsor. The sponsor’s letter states the Applicant is the sponsor’s first cousin. The Applicant’s father and sponsor’s father were brothers. The sponsor states that he became financially responsible for the Applicant’s education following the early death of the Applicant’s father. The Applicant’s statement of purpose confirms these details and provides specific information about the kind of financial assistance provided by his sponsor in the past.
[5] In light of these materials, the officer’s finding that there was “limited information demonstrating [the] nature of [the] relationship between [the A]pplicant and [the] sponsor”
was unintelligible and not justified. Although the officer rightly noted that there was little “documentation on file”
on this point, the Applicant provided detailed submissions precisely on the issue of the nature of the relationship between himself and the sponsor. I agree with the Applicant that, although the officer did not need to accept “everything put forward”
by the Applicant, they were nonetheless required to offer some explanation about how this information factored into their analysis. This is consistent with the principle of responsive justification, by which decision-makers demonstrate that they “have actually listened to the parties”
(Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 127, cited in Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 74 [emphasis in original]).
[6] In this case, the officer did not address the detailed information provided by the Applicant about the nature of his relationship with his sponsor. There is nothing in the decision to indicate that the officer reviewed the Applicant’s statement of purpose and the sponsor’s letter and decided to attribute these documents little weight. Unlike the cases cited by the Respondent, in which the study permit applicants provided little more than a bare statement of the relationship between them and their sponsors, the Applicant in this case provided “detailed”
documents “explain[ing] the precise nature of [his] relationship with the Applicant,”
including information about the Applicant and sponsor’s family, household, and history of financial support (Ejevuvor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2054 at para 17; Oyewole v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1690 at para 7; Asuni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 185 at para 7). These materials were highly material to whether the Applicant would have sufficient financial resources pursuant to section 220 of the Regulations. The officer’s failure to account for this evidence in their decision renders the study permit refusal unintelligible and not justified.
[7] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is allowed.
Email this Content