The Federal Court reviewed
the refusal of a Nigerian applicant’s study permit application. The visa
officer concluded that the applicant lacked sufficient financial resources to
support her studies in Canada. The Court allowed the judicial review, finding
that the officer misapprehended the evidence regarding the applicant’s
Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) and failed to justify why the
applicant’s finances were insufficient despite meeting IRCC’s financial
guidelines.
Key Principle
The Court reaffirmed that study
permit refusals based on insufficient funds must accurately assess all
available financial resources. Where an applicant satisfies IRCC’s published
financial requirements, an officer must provide clear and rational reasons for
concluding that the available funds remain inadequate. Misapprehending evidence
concerning a GIC or other financial assets may render a refusal unreasonable.
Background
Janet Ngozi Alademomi
applied for a study permit to attend an eight-month program at Conestoga
College. In support of her application, she provided evidence that she had
fully paid her tuition fees of approximately $19,200, purchased a Canadian GIC
worth $20,635, and maintained an additional bank account in Nigeria containing
approximately $9,394. The GIC was structured so that 30% of the funds would be
available immediately after activation in Canada, while the remaining 70% would
be released through monthly payments.
Despite acknowledging the
tuition payment and GIC as positive factors, the visa officer focused on the
applicant’s Nigerian bank account and concluded that only those funds were
immediately available. The officer determined that the applicant lacked sufficient
accessible funds and refused the study permit application.
Court Findings
Justice Azmudeh found the
decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer misunderstood the
evidence concerning the GIC by treating the monthly disbursements as the
entirety of the available funds. The officer failed to recognize that 30% of
the GIC would be immediately accessible upon the applicant’s arrival in Canada,
in addition to the funds available in her Nigerian bank account.
The Court noted that the
financial guideline applied by the officer required approximately $20,635 in
available funds, excluding tuition and transportation costs. The applicant had
already paid her tuition in full, held more than $9,000 in her Nigerian account,
and had immediate access to a significant portion of her GIC. The officer
failed to explain why these resources were insufficient despite satisfying the
benchmark established by IRCC’s own financial requirements.
Justice Azmudeh emphasized
that where an applicant meets the financial threshold set out in the applicable
guideline, an officer must provide a rational explanation if they nevertheless
conclude that the funds are inadequate. By overlooking a substantial portion of
the applicant’s available resources, the officer broke the chain of reasoning
required for a reasonable decision.
The Federal Court allowed
the judicial review and returned the matter to a different officer for
reconsideration.
Case Citation: Alademomi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 380 (CanLII)
