The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit
application by a Nigerian applicant who intended to complete a two-year Global
Business Management program in Canada.
The officer was not satisfied that the applicant had
demonstrated a genuine intention to study or that he would leave Canada at the
end of his authorized stay. The Court upheld the refusal, finding that the
concerns about the source of funds and purpose of studies were reasonably
supported by the evidence.
Key Principle
A study permit applicant bears the burden of demonstrating
that they meet the requirements of the IRPR, including that they will leave
Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
An officer may consider the source of funds, educational
history, employment circumstances, travel history, and the applicant’s
explanation for pursuing the proposed studies when assessing whether the
study purpose is genuine.
A gap in education may be relevant where it forms part of
the officer’s assessment of the applicant’s genuine intention to study,
particularly where the explanation for returning to school is vague.
Background
The applicant was 37 years old, married with two children,
and had unsuccessfully applied for a Canadian study permit three times. He
intended to study Global Business Management at Centennial College.
The officer questioned the source of his funds because the
applicant relied on employer support, personal savings, and funds associated
with a business, but the supporting evidence did not clearly establish the
source or availability of those funds.
The officer also noted that the applicant had been out of
formal education for approximately 14 years and found his explanation for
pursuing the Canadian program insufficiently specific. The applicant argued
that the officer had ignored evidence and that he should have been given an
opportunity to respond to concerns about his travel history.
Court Findings
The Federal Court found that the officer’s concerns were
reasonably supported by the evidence.
The Court noted that the applicant had provided several
financial documents, but important gaps remained. For example, some cash
deposits in his personal account were unexplained, evidence supporting his
wife’s claimed business income was missing, the rental income from a claimed
property was not established, and there was no evidence that his pension funds
would be available for his studies.
The Court also found that the applicant’s explanation for
pursuing the program was vague. Given his age, established employment,
and long gap in education, it was reasonable for the officer to expect a
clearer explanation of the specific benefits the program would provide to his
current career.
The Court held that the officer was not required to give the
applicant an opportunity to respond to every concern, particularly because the
travel history was not the main basis for refusal. The central concerns were
the unclear source of funds and the lack of a sufficiently demonstrated genuine
study purpose.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial
review and upheld the study permit refusal.
Case Citation:
Akomolafe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 472 CanLII
Written by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst
