JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant, Janet Ngozi Alademomi, is seeking a judicial review of the rejection of her Study Permit application for Canada. The visa officer (Officer) reviewing her application found that insufficient funds was the determinative issue.

[2] The Applicant is a Nigerian citizen who applied for a study permit to attend an eight-month program at the Conestoga College in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada.

[3] The parties do not dispute that as part of her study permit application, the Applicant provided the following documents related to her finances:

Evidence of full payment of her tuition fees in the amount of $19,201.94.

Evidence of funds in her name in a CIBC GIC account in Canada in the amount of $20,635. The CIBC letter stated that 70% of the funds will be disbursed with 11 equal payments of $1,313 paid out to the Applicant monthly. CIBC had instructed the Applicant that once she arrived in Canada, she could visit CIBC to activate her account.

Evidence of the Applicant’s Nigerian bank account at Access Bank showing the equivalent of approximately $9,394.

[4] The Respondent agreed that the guideline the Officer applied to this case would require the Applicant to show $20,635 of available funds, excluding the Applicant’s tuition and transport. This was the amount of funds in the Applicant’s GIC.

[5] In refusing the Application, the Officer acknowledged in the Global Case Management Systems (GCMS) notes that the Applicant had paid her full tuition fees and that she also had the GIC investment and considered them to be positive factors.

[6] However, the Officer also noted that the Applicant’s immediate available funds were those in her Access Bank account totalling $9,394. She would not have access to her GIC before she activated her account after arriving in Canada. The Officer also noted that “the funds [in the GIC] are disbursed on a monthly basis at a capped amount in this case, $1313 only per month”.

II. Issues and Standard of Review

[7] The only issue before me is whether the Decision is reasonable.

[8] Reasonableness review is a deferential and disciplined evaluation of whether an administrative decision is transparent, intelligible and justified: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paras 12–13, 15 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21, at paras 8, 63 [Mason].

[9] I have started by reading the reasons of the decision-maker in conjunction with the record that was before them holistically and contextually. As the reviewing judge, I have focused on the decision-maker’s reasoning process (Vavilov at paras 83–84, 87). I have not considered whether the decision-maker’s decision was correct, or what I would do if I were deciding the matter itself: Vavilov, at para 83; Canada (Justice) v D.V., 2022 FCA 181 at paras 15, 23. It is not this Court’s role to reweigh the evidence (Vavilov at para 125).

[10] A reasonable decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrained the decision-maker (See Vavilov at paras 85, 91–97, 103, 105–106, 194; Canada Post Corp v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 at paras 2, 28–33, 61; Mason at paras 8, 59–61, 66). For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish that the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant (Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention.

III. Preliminary Issue

[11] When the Applicant’s Study Permit application was refused, she applied for its reconsideration, which was also subsequently refused. The Respondent argued that, under Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, the Applicant cannot expect the Court to review both the refusal of the reconsideration and the refusal of the study permit in one judicial review.

[12] I disagree with the Respondent. I am guided by Naderika v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 788 at para 29 [Naderika]. Here, it is in the interest of justice and of judicial economy that the Court review the determination on the reconsideration request as part of the judicial review of the initial refusal decision. Like in Naderika, the refusal to reconsider is part of the same file and was issued before the Applicant filed their judicial review. As such, no useful purpose would be served by requiring the Applicant to file a separate application for judicial review. I therefore decide the case on its merits.

IV. Legislative Overview

[13] The following sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] set out visa officers’ powers and constraints in assessing study permits:

V. Analysis

A. The Officer’s decision was unreasonable

[14] On a study permit application, the Applicant must establish that they meet the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR. Visa officers have a wide discretion in their assessment of the application and the Court ought to provide considerable deference to an Officer’s decision given the level of expertise they bring to these matters (Zamor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 479 at para 19, citing Solopova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) at para 12). The Applicant who seeks temporary entry to Canada bears the onus of establishing and satisfying a visa officer that they will leave Canada at the end of the authorized period of stay requested (Khoshfam v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 961 at para 24).

[15] In addition, in assessing the reasonableness of the decision, the Court recognizes that the high volume of visa decisions and the narrow consequences of a refusal are such that extensive reasons are not required (Vavilov at paras 88, 91; Lingepo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 552 at para 13; Yuzer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 781 at paras 9, 16 [Yuzer]; Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1298 at paras 19–20). Nonetheless, the reasons given by the Officer must, when read in the context of the record, adequately explain and justify why the application was refused (Yuzer at paras 9, 20; Hashemi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1562 at para 35; Vavilov at paras 86, 93–98).

[16] Even though the Officer has engaged with the evidence before them, it appears that they misapprehended the evidence on the amount of money available to the Applicant. In dealing with the CIBC GIC, the Officer noted that the “funds are disbursed on a monthly basis at a capped amount, in this case, $1313 CAD only per month”. They referred to “the funds” when the 11 equal payments of $1,313 represented only 70% of the funds. Once the Applicant arrived and activated her account, the Applicant had an immediate access to 30% of the GIC, which the Officer appears to have overlooked. These funds were available in addition to the $9394 available in Access Bank. The Officer did not question the availability of the Access Bank funds.

[17] Moreover, as the Respondent agreed, the Officer was guided by the availability of $20,635 to the Applicant, excluding tuition and transport. As the officer had acknowledged, the Applicant had already paid the tuition in full, and had access to over $9,000 for her transport, plus access to 30% of her GIC shortly after arrival, which the Officer did not take into account. It is unclear whether the calculation of the additional 30% would have satisfied the Officer.

[18] The Guideline explicitly set out the required funds for entry to Canada. The Applicant met that expectation, and the Officer accepted that she also had additional funds of over $9,000 available to her in her Nigerian bank account. Given that the GIC was funded specifically to accord with the Guideline, not accounting for the entirety of the funds is a break in the chain of reasoning that renders the decision unreasonable. Further, having met the financial threshold set out in the Guideline, the applicant would reasonably expect that she has satisfied the presumptive standard of sufficiency. It was therefore incumbent on the Officer to explain why meeting that standard was inadequate in this case. In the absence of such reasons, the finding of insufficiency is an unexplained rejection of the very benchmark the decision-maker is expected to apply.

VI. Conclusion

[19] For the foregoing reasons, the Officer’s decision is unreasonable.

[20] Neither party proposed a question for certification and I agree that none arises in this matter.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-3215-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that

1. The Judicial Review is allowed, and the matter is referred back for redetermination by a different officer.

2. There are no questions to be certified.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: