Docket: IMM-2200-25
Citation: 2025 FC 784
Ottawa, Ontario, April 30, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Gleeson
|
BETWEEN: |
|
ODUNAYO JANET DARE |
|
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 January 15, 2025, 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] The Applicant argues that the Officer misconstrued, misunderstood, or disregarded evidence in concluding the Applicant had not provided satisfactory documentation showing the source of funding to pay tuition fees and expenses over the course of her studies.
[4] 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).
[5] Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, the Officer did not ignore or misconstrue evidence relating to the Applicant’s financial documents.
[6] The Officer accurately noted the approximate available bank balances, the stated source of the majority of those funds, and the Applicant’s compensation details relating to her prior employment. On the basis of this evidence, the Officer concluded that the Applicant’s levels of compensation were not proportionate to the reported level of savings or investments and that there was inadequate documentation showing the source of funds.
[7] In my view, this was reasonable. In the absence of an explanation as to the source of the funds deposited to the investment account, it was open to the Officer to find the deposits were not proportionate to the Applicant’s reported earnings.
[8] The application for judicial review will be dismissed. No question for certification arises.
Email this Content