Eidangbe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 138 : Decision Set Aside After Officer Unreasonably Assessed Family Income and Irrelevant Travel History

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Gabriel Eidangbe and his family’s Temporary Resident Visa applications. The family, citizens of Nigeria, wished to visit a friend in Canada and tour Toronto and southern Ontario. After an earlier refusal had been set aside and returned for redetermination, a different officer again refused the applications. The Court found no procedural fairness breach in the officer’s use of estimated travel costs, but concluded that the officer’s assessment of the family’s income and comments about their failure to visit relatives in the United States and Sweden were unreasonable.

Key Principle

A visa officer assessing a TRV application may estimate the costs of a proposed trip without first giving the applicants an opportunity to comment, because the duty of procedural fairness in temporary resident visa matters is relatively limited. However, the officer’s ultimate findings must still be reasonable, relevant, and intelligible. Financial evidence must be assessed rationally, and unrelated travel choices cannot be used negatively without a reasonable connection to the applicant’s intention to visit Canada temporarily.

Background

Mr. Eidangbe applied for a TRV in July 2016 for himself and his family. Their stated purpose was to visit a friend in Canada and travel around Toronto and southern Ontario.

The first application was refused in October 2016. Judicial review followed, and the refusal was set aside on the Minister’s motion. The matter was then sent to a different officer for a new decision.

On redetermination, the officer again refused the applications in April 2017. The applicants challenged the decision, arguing that they were not told about concerns regarding their financial information, that the officer improperly relied on external information to estimate travel costs, and that the earlier consent judgment created issue estoppel. They also challenged the officer’s reliance on their failure to visit relatives living in the United States and Sweden.

Court Findings

• No Procedural Fairness Breach in Estimating Travel Costs

The Court agreed that the duty of procedural fairness in TRV applications is at the low end of the spectrum. It was not improper for the officer to independently estimate the likely costs of the proposed Canadian trip, and the officer was not required to discuss those calculations with the applicants before deciding the application.

• Family Income Assessment Was Unreasonable

The Court was not satisfied that the officer’s treatment of the evidence regarding family income met the reasonableness standard. The decision did not demonstrate a sufficiently justifiable, transparent, or intelligible assessment of the applicants’ financial circumstances.

• Travel to Other Countries Was Not a Relevant Negative Factor

The officer also relied on the fact that the family had not travelled to visit relatives in the United States and Sweden. The Court found those comments unreasonable and insufficiently connected to the issue of whether the applicants intended to visit Canada temporarily. The mere absence of visits to relatives elsewhere did not reasonably support refusal of the Canadian TRV applications.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the April 27, 2017 refusal, and remitted the applications to a different officer for redetermination. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Eidangbe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 138 (CanLII)