Introduction
The Federal Court
reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a study permit application by a Nigerian applicant
who had been accepted into an eight-month program at Conestoga College. The
officer concluded that the applicant had insufficient available financial
resources despite acknowledging that her tuition had been fully paid and that
she had purchased a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) meeting IRCC’s
financial guideline. The Court found that the officer misapprehended the
evidence regarding the availability of the applicant’s funds, rendering the
decision unreasonable.
Key Principle
The Federal Court
held that where an applicant satisfies IRCC’s published financial guideline for
study permits, an officer must accurately assess the available funds and
explain why those funds remain insufficient if refusing the application. A
decision based on a misunderstanding of the evidence or an unexplained
departure from the applicable financial benchmark is unreasonable.
Background
The applicant, a
citizen of Nigeria, applied for a study permit to attend Conestoga College in
Ontario. In support of her application, she submitted proof that her tuition
fees had been paid in full, a Canadian GIC worth $20,635, and evidence of
approximately $9,394 held in her Nigerian bank account.
The officer
acknowledged that the applicant had fully paid her tuition and recognized the
GIC as a positive factor. However, the application was refused because the
officer concluded that only the funds in the Nigerian bank account were
immediately available, while the GIC would be released only through capped
monthly payments after the applicant arrived in Canada.
Court Findings
• Officer
Misunderstood the Availability of GIC Funds
The Court found
that the officer incorrectly assessed the structure of the applicant’s GIC.
While the officer focused on the monthly payments of approximately $1,313, the
evidence showed that the applicant would receive immediate access to 30% of the
GIC upon activating the account after arriving in Canada. This significant
portion of the available funds was overlooked.
• Financial
Assessment Failed to Reflect the Complete Record
Justice Azmudeh
noted that the applicant had already paid her tuition in full and also
possessed over $9,000 in her Nigerian bank account. When combined with the
immediately accessible portion of the GIC, the officer failed to consider the
applicant’s complete financial circumstances before concluding that she lacked
sufficient funds.
• Departure
from IRCC’s Financial Guideline Required an Explanation
The Court
emphasized that the officer had applied the published financial guideline
requiring $20,635 in available funds, excluding tuition and transportation
costs. Since the applicant had met that benchmark and also possessed additional
funds, it was incumbent on the officer to explain why the guideline was
nevertheless insufficient in her particular circumstances. The absence of such
reasoning broke the chain of analysis required under Vavilov.
Outcome
The Federal Court
granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal, and
remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination. The Court held
that the officer’s misunderstanding of the applicant’s available financial
resources and failure to justify departing from IRCC’s own financial benchmark
rendered the decision unreasonable. No question was certified.
Case Citation: Alademomi
v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 380 (CanLII)
