Nsiegbe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1262 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Speculated That Applicant Inflated Bank Balance and Overlooked Return to Country of Citizenship

Nne Modeline Nsiegbe sought judicial review after a visa officer refused her study permit application because of concerns about her financial resources and whether she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable. There was no evidentiary basis for the officer’s conclusion that Nsiegbe had artificially inflated her bank account, and the temporary-intent assessment improperly focused on her temporary residence in Saudi Arabia while overlooking her country of citizenship, Nigeria.

Key Principle

An officer cannot characterize transfers between an applicant’s own bank accounts as artificial inflation of financial resources without an evidentiary basis for doing so. If the source of funds raises a genuine concern, the officer must assess the evidence reasonably rather than speculate. In assessing temporary intent, an officer must also consider the applicant’s circumstances in relation to the country to which the applicant may return, including the applicant’s country of citizenship, and should not restrict the analysis to a country where the applicant holds only temporary status.

Background

Nsiegbe, a Nigerian citizen and nurse, was working in Saudi Arabia under a work permit valid until August 1, 2021. Her employer granted her an 18-month leave of absence beginning in July 2018 so that she could pursue studies in Canada.

The officer refused the application under subsection 216(1) and section 220 of the IRPR. The GCMS notes referred to limited evidence of Nsiegbe’s establishment in Saudi Arabia and expressed concern that recent deposits into her bank account were intended to inflate the amount of money available for her study permit application because they did not appear to come from her regular employment income.

Nsiegbe had also provided evidence that her tuition had been paid in full.

Court Findings

• Finding of Artificially Inflated Funds Was Unsupported

The Court found no evidentiary foundation for the officer’s conclusion that Nsiegbe inflated her bank balance for immigration purposes. The evidence demonstrated that the funds had simply been transferred from one of her own accounts to another.

There was no legal basis for suggesting that an applicant could not consolidate funds between personal accounts to demonstrate financial stability. If the officer had concerns about the source or status of the other account, those concerns had to be grounded in the evidence rather than assumption.

• Evidence of Tuition Payment Was Not Contradicted

The record contained nothing contradicting Nsiegbe’s evidence that she had paid her tuition fees in full. This evidence was directly relevant to her financial ability to undertake the proposed studies and further weakened the officer’s concerns about the sufficiency of her resources.

• Temporary Intent Analysis Focused on the Wrong Country

The officer assessed whether Nsiegbe would leave Canada primarily by examining her establishment in Saudi Arabia. However, her status there was temporary and based on a work permit. The Court held that the officer unreasonably overlooked the possibility of her returning to Nigeria, her country of citizenship.

Her temporary status in Saudi Arabia therefore could not reasonably support the refusal without consideration of her ability and incentive to return to Nigeria.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the study permit refusal and remitted the application to another officer for redetermination. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Nsiegbe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1262 (CanLII)