Docket: IMM-22708-24
Citation: 2025 FC 783
Ottawa, Ontario, April 30, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Gleeson
|
BETWEEN: |
|
TOLUWALOPE ADEOLA ISHOLA |
|
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, for leave to commence an application for judicial review of a decision of an Officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [Officer] dated October 7, 2024, refusing the Applicant’s study permit application.
[2] Leave to commence the application for judicial review is granted. However, I am dismissing the application for the reasons that follow.
[3] On judicial review, it is not the Court’s role to reweigh evidence nor 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 (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 91-95).
[4] The Applicant submits the Officer ignored or misconstrued evidence relating to the Applicant’s financial documents. I disagree.
[5] The Officer accurately notes that the Applicant’s bank statement lacks detail and concludes that this prevents an assessment of the source of the funds in that account. The Officer further notes the numerous lump sum payments reflected in a separate account.
[6] The Applicant takes issue with the Officer’s treatment of the financial evidence. However, disagreement is insufficient to render the decision unreasonable. The Applicant also points to rental income based on property ownership documentation as an explanation for the lump sum payments that were of concern to the Officer. In this regard, I agree with the Respondent’s submissions to the effect that the Applicant was required to demonstrate all reliable sources of income relied upon; the Applicant failed to identify the rental income as such.
[7] I am therefore satisfied that the Officer reasonably considered the financial documentation provided. The conclusions reached on the basis of the evidence on the record were reasonably available to the Officer.
[8] Nor was there a breach of procedural fairness. The Officer’s decision is based on sufficiency of the evidence, not on credibility.
[9] The application for judicial review will be dismissed. No question for certification arises.
Email this Content