Bajo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1409 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Assess the Applicant’s Complete Financial Circumstances

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Babatomiwa Adewale Bajo’s study permit application. The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, relied on financial support from his cousin in the Netherlands to cover tuition, living expenses, and travel costs. The officer refused the application, finding that the applicant was not financially established in Nigeria and that his financial situation was insufficient. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to properly assess the third-party financial support that was central to the application.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that study permit assessments must consider the complete financial context of an application. Where an applicant relies on a sponsor or third-party funding, officers must meaningfully assess that support rather than focus only on the applicant’s personal finances. A decision is unreasonable where the officer misunderstands key evidence or fails to engage with factors relevant to the applicant’s intention to leave Canada.

Background

The applicant applied for a study permit and explained that his cousin in the Netherlands would fully fund his education, travel, and living expenses in Canada.

The officer refused the application, finding that:

• The applicant’s employment situation in Nigeria did not demonstrate financial establishment.
• No personal bank statements were provided to show economic establishment.
• The applicant’s assets and financial situation were insufficient to support his studies.
• The cousin’s financial support was not adequately proven because there was no direct evidence of financial transfers.

The applicant argued that the cousin’s sponsorship was the foundation of the application and that the officer failed to properly consider evidence showing that the cousin had already paid tuition directly.

 Court Findings

• Officer Misapprehended Sponsor Evidence

The Court found that the officer’s financial analysis was unreasonable because it failed to account for the central role of the cousin’s financial support.

Justice Gleeson noted that the application clearly stated that the applicant’s expenses would be funded by his cousin. In that context, focusing primarily on whether the applicant personally had sufficient funds in Nigeria was unclear.

• Direct Tuition Payment Was Ignored

The Court found that the officer incorrectly relied on the absence of direct financial transfers from the cousin to the applicant. The record showed that the cousin had already paid tuition directly on the applicant’s behalf, which supported the credibility of the sponsorship.

The officer failed to engage with this important evidence.

• Push and Pull Factors Were Not Fully Considered

The Court also found that, to the extent the officer relied only on the applicant’s financial establishment in Nigeria, the officer failed to consider other factors relevant to whether the applicant would leave Canada after his studies.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted leave and allowed the judicial review application. The refusal decision was set aside, and the matter was returned to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Bajo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1409 (CanLII)