Oboghor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2019 : Study Permit Refusal Upheld After Officer Reasonably Examined the Source and Stability of Funds

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Patrick Onome Oboghor’s study permit application. The Nigerian applicant relied primarily on a CAD $30,000 bank draft issued by the Royal Bank of Canada, together with a CAD $3,000 tuition deposit, to demonstrate his ability to finance a ten-month Business Administration certificate program. The officer found that there was insufficient evidence concerning the source of the bank draft funds and was therefore not satisfied that the funds would remain sufficient and available. The Court dismissed judicial review, finding the decision reasonable and procedurally fair.

Key Principle

Submitting a bank draft, including one drawn on a Canadian bank, does not automatically establish sufficient and available financial resources for a study permit. An officer may examine the source, nature, and stability of the funds to determine whether they will actually remain available for tuition, living expenses, and travel. IRCC’s website identifies documents that may be submitted as proof of funds, but it does not require officers to accept those documents at face value or override the requirements of section 220 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

Background

The applicant sought to attend a ten-month Business Administration certificate program at Saskatoon Business College.

His application included a tuition receipt showing that CAD $3,000 had already been paid and a CAD $30,000 RBC bank draft issued in his name.

The applicant stated that he had saved his resources after deciding to study in Canada and that the CAD $30,000 was immediately available. He also submitted employment letters for himself and his spouse, but those letters did not provide salary information or explain how their income generated the bank draft funds.

The applicable visa office instructions for Nigeria required six months of certified banking or investment history and evidence of a reliable source of funds for the duration of the academic program.

The officer concluded that the limited evidence concerning the source of the bank draft did not demonstrate that the funds would be sufficient and available.

Court Findings

• Bank Draft Was Not Conclusive Proof

Neither section 220 of the Regulations nor IRCC’s website prevented the officer from investigating whether the funds represented by the bank draft were genuinely available and stable.

• Source, Nature, and Stability Were Relevant

Funds held in Canada can be unavailable, borrowed, or temporary, just like funds held abroad. The Canadian location of the bank did not immunize the draft from further scrutiny.

• Source of Funds Was Insufficiently Explained

The applicant’s general statement that he had saved the money, without salary information, transaction history, or other supporting details, reasonably provided only limited evidence of the funds’ origin.

• Financial Finding Was Determinative

Although the refusal referred to the requirement to leave Canada under paragraph 216(1)(b), the reasons clearly communicated that the application failed because the mandatory financial requirement under section 220 was not established.

• No Procedural Fairness Letter Was Required

The officer did not question the authenticity of the bank draft or make an adverse credibility finding. The concern arose from insufficient evidence concerning a statutory requirement, and the applicant was not entitled to another opportunity to complete the application.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the study permit refusal. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Oboghor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 2019 (CanLII)