Docket: IMM-1795-25
Citation: 2025 FC 892
Ottawa, Ontario, May 15, 2025
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond
|
BETWEEN: |
|
FLEURETTE LOUISE ESPANO |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Simplified Procedure - Study Permit Pilot Project)
[1] Ms. Espano, a citizen of the Philippines, is seeking judicial review of the refusal of a permit to study in the Occupational Health and Safety Management Program at Centennial College. A visa officer refused her application because she did not provide sufficient evidence of her relationship with her sponsor and of the availability of the sponsor’s funds. Moreover, the officer found that the proposed program was not a logical progression in Ms. Espano’s career.
[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] In her application, Ms. Espano stated that her aunt would provide the funds necessary for her studies. She included a letter and an affidavit from the aunt, as well as her and her aunt’s birth certificates. The officer found that the relationship between Ms. Espano and her aunt was “not well substantiated by supporting documents.”
The officer also noted that “[t]he relationship between the applicant and sponsor has not been explained in a way that would justify such a large financial sponsorship.”
[5] Ms. Espano argues that the officer did not reasonably engage with the evidence. I disagree. An officer is entitled to inquire as to the reasons why a person would support a relative’s studies abroad: see, for example, Roopchan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1342 at paragraph 16; Oyewole v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1690 at paragraph 7; Asuni v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 185 at paragraph 7. Here, the aunt’s letter and affidavit do not give any explanation in this regard, beyond the fact that she is Ms. Espano’s aunt. The lack of evidence concerning the relationship distinguishes this case from other cases where a similar finding was held to be unreasonable, such as Ejevuvor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2054 at paragraph 17; Amadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 490 at paragraph 4; Ofori v Canada (Citizenzhip and Immigration), 2025 FC 630 at paragraph 5.
[6] The officer also refused the study permit because the proposed program did not appear to be a logical progression of Ms. Espano’s career, who has been working in finance and accounting for over a decade. Moreover, the officer noted that “similar programs of study are readily available in their home country and regionally at significantly lower cost.”
[7] Ms. Espano argues that this is unreasonable, because the officer overlooked her statement of purpose, in which she explained that she became interested in occupational health and safety as a result of a previous work experience, that she cannot obtain employment in this field without training and that she cannot obtain training in the Philippines without experience.
[8] I disagree. A visa officer may inquire as to the benefits that the proposed program of study would bring to the applicant: Mardani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 503 at paragraph 9; Rezvani Gilkolaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 194 at paragraph 7. The officer may rely on common sense for this purpose. Occupational health and safety is a field that depends in large measure on the laws applicable in a particular jurisdiction. It is unclear that training in Canada, especially at the college level, would be transferrable to the Philippines. I have read Ms. Espano’s statement of purpose and I cannot conclude that the officer’s findings, quoted above, are unreasonable.
[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Email this Content