Ejevuvor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2054 : Study Permit Refusal Overturned for Failure to Consider Detailed Sponsor Documentation

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Efemena Oritsegbubemi Ejevuvor’s study permit application. The Nigerian applicant had been accepted into a Business Administration certificate program at the University of Victoria. Her mother’s cousin, a Canadian permanent resident whom the applicant regarded as an aunt, agreed to finance her studies. The officer was not satisfied that the relationship with the sponsor had been established or that the sponsor’s funds would be sufficient and available. The Court granted judicial review because these conclusions were not justified by the evidence.

Key Principle

Where a third-party sponsor provides a detailed sworn statement explaining the family relationship, history of support, and reasons for financing the applicant’s studies, an officer cannot simply state that the relationship is insufficiently documented without explaining why. The officer must also assess the sponsor’s income, available investments, tuition already paid, and financial commitment against the actual cost of studies. Concerns about the liquidity of publicly traded investments require a rational evidentiary basis and cannot rest on speculation.

Background

The applicant’s sponsor was her mother’s cousin, who had grown up in the same household as the applicant’s mother and treated the applicant as her niece.

In a notarized support letter, the sponsor committed $25,000 toward the applicant’s education and living expenses. She explained the close family relationship and her history of financially supporting the applicant and her parents.

The program tuition was approximately $6,600. The sponsor had already paid a $2,000 tuition deposit and a $300 application fee.

The financial evidence included proof that the sponsor earned approximately $74,000 annually as a senior financial advisor, as well as investment portfolios valued at approximately $30,883, $14,943, and $12,977. A separate investment account showing USD $17,337.58 did not identify the account holder.

Court Findings

• Sponsor Relationship Was Adequately Explained

Both the applicant and sponsor described their relationship, while the sponsor provided a detailed notarized statement. The officer’s bare conclusion that the relationship was insufficiently documented was not a reasoned analysis.

• Possible Veiled Credibility Finding

Given the detailed sworn evidence, the officer’s unexplained rejection suggested that the officer may simply have disbelieved the sponsor’s account without openly making or justifying a credibility finding.

• Sponsor’s Income Was Not Considered

The reasons did not show that the officer assessed the sponsor’s stable annual income, even though it was central to her ability to fund the studies.

• Financial Commitment Exceeded the Required Amount

The sponsor’s commitment and identified assets exceeded the tuition and living-fund requirements applicable when the application was submitted. The officer did not explain what financial benchmark was used.

• Liquidity Concern Was Speculative

The investments consisted of publicly traded shares, including companies such as Apple and Tesla. The officer provided no rational explanation for suggesting that these assets might not be liquid.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the study permit refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ejevuvor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2054 (CanLII)