Adediran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 89 : TRP Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Overlooked Childhood Sexual Assault Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Taiwo Bolanle Adediran’s TRP and related study permit applications. The officer concluded that the applicant had not shown how adverse country conditions, including risks of sexual violence, would personally affect her. The Court granted judicial review because the officer overlooked or misunderstood evidence that she had experienced an attempted sexual assault as a child.

Key Principle

Where an applicant relies on country-condition evidence and provides personal evidence directly connecting those conditions to past harm and future fear, an officer must meaningfully consider that connection. Overlooking material evidence of prior sexual violence can render a TRP refusal unreasonable, particularly where the evidence directly contradicts the officer’s conclusion that the applicant failed to demonstrate personalized impact.

Background

The applicant came to Canada in 2012 for post-secondary studies. After her study permit expired in 2015, she remained and studied and worked without authorization. She later sought a TRP and new study permit, relying partly on hardship and risks she would face if required to return abroad.

Court Findings

• Officer Recognized Sexual Violence Evidence but Found No Personal Connection

The applicant submitted country-condition evidence documenting crime, violence, sexual harassment, and sexual violence. The officer acknowledged those conditions but concluded that she had not demonstrated how she personally would be directly affected by them.

• Childhood Attempted Sexual Assault Directly Contradicted That Finding

In a statutory declaration, the applicant explained that she had been the victim of an attempted sexual assault at approximately age 11. She expressly connected that experience to her fear of exposure to sexual violence upon return, making it directly relevant to the officer’s personalized-risk conclusion.

• Evidence Was Either Overlooked or Its Significance Misunderstood

The Court found that the reasons could not be reconciled with the applicant’s statutory declaration. By stating that she had not linked the country-condition evidence to her own circumstances, the officer either failed to notice the childhood assault evidence or failed to appreciate its relevance.

• Error Was Material to the TRP Assessment

The Minister argued that any factual error was insufficiently important to justify intervention. The Court disagreed because the applicant’s concerns about isolation and exposure to risks abroad were material parts of her TRP submissions, even though completing her studies in Canada was also a significant objective.

• Study Permit Refusal Depended on the TRP Refusal

The officer refused the study permit because the TRP application had first been refused. Once the TRP assessment was found unreasonable, the related study permit decision could not stand independently and required reconsideration together with the TRP application.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the decision, and remitted the TRP and study permit applications to a different officer for redetermination. The applicant was permitted to provide updated evidence and submissions. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Adediran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 89 (CanLII)