Iriekpen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1276 : Decision Set Aside After Officer Failed to Assess Bank Evidence in Study Permit Refusal

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Chiedu Josephine Iriekpen’s study permit application. After an earlier officer raised concerns that bank statements submitted to prove her husband’s financial support might be fraudulent, she was instructed to provide one year of “MyBank Statements” and told that no other response would be accepted. She instead submitted one year of signed bank statements and confirmation letters from the banks. The Court granted judicial review because the examining officer did not assess those documents or explain why failing to provide MyBank statements showed that she was untruthful.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that applicants must provide relevant documents that an officer reasonably requires under section 16 of IRPA. However, an officer must still assess the evidence actually submitted. A refusal cannot rest only on the failure to provide a particular requested document where the officer does not explain why that document was necessary, assess the alternative evidence provided, or explain how the omission affects truthfulness.

Background

The applicant, a Nigerian citizen, was accepted into Sheridan College’s Social Service Worker program. Her study permit application included proof of tuition payment, a sponsorship letter from her husband, and bank statements from Guaranty Trust Bank and Access Bank showing his financial resources.

A procedural fairness letter stated that the officer had reason to believe the bank statements were fraudulent and required MyBank statements for a one-year period. The applicant responded with signed one-year bank statements, reference letters from both banks, and an invitation for IRCC to verify the documents directly.

A later officer noted that the original officer had not identified what made the bank statements appear fraudulent. Nevertheless, the application was refused because the applicant had not provided the requested MyBank documents and was therefore considered not truthful.

Court Findings

• Reason for Requiring MyBank Statements Was Unclear

The Court found that the record did not explain the original fraud concern or why MyBank statements were required to the exclusion of other evidence. Even the examining officer could not identify what indicators had caused the earlier officer to suspect fraud. This made it difficult to assess whether the request itself was reasonable.

• Submitted Bank Evidence Was Not Assessed

The applicant provided signed bank statements and bank confirmation letters covering the requested period. The examining officer did not identify any concern with their authenticity or sufficiency. The Court held that section 16 did not prevent the officer from assessing alternative evidence simply because the exact requested document had not been provided.

• Truthfulness Finding Was Not Explained

The officer concluded that the applicant had not been truthful, but did not explain how providing conventional bank statements and confirmation letters instead of MyBank statements supported that conclusion. The refusal letter also checked a box concerning a “legitimate business purpose,” even though the application was for studies, further reducing the transparency of the decision.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the September 3, 2019 study permit refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for redetermination. The Court found that the decision lacked transparency, intelligibility, and justification. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Iriekpen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1276 (CanLII)