Sopeyin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1435 : Spousal Open Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Relied on Extrinsic Family Immigration Records

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Oluwadamilola Aminat Sopeyin’s spousal open work permit and her children’s visitor visa applications. The officer relied on financial information from the husband’s separate study permit application. The Court found the decision both unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

Key Principle

Information drawn from a family member’s separate immigration file may constitute extrinsic evidence. If an officer relies on such information to refuse an application, the record must disclose its source and the applicant must generally receive a meaningful opportunity to respond where the information was not part of the application record.

Background

The principal applicant sought an open work permit to join her husband, who was studying in Canada, while her minor children sought visitor visas. The officer concluded that the family lacked sufficient funds, relying on the husband’s alleged $45,000 funds, annual tuition of $20,000, and a low-income threshold for a family of five.

Court Findings

• Financial Refusal Relied on Husband’s Separate Study Permit File

The GCMS notes expressly used figures said to come from the husband’s study permit application, including $45,000 in available funds and $20,000 annual tuition. Those figures were central to the conclusion that the family lacked enough resources to support their stay.

• Source of the Information Was Unknown

The Court could not identify where the officer obtained the husband’s financial and tuition information. Neither party located the source in the certified record. Because the decision depended on evidence of unknown provenance, the Court could not assess whether the information was accurate, current, or properly considered.

• Unknown Evidence Undermined Reasonableness

A reasonable decision must be transparent, justified, and intelligible. Here, the Court could not trace the officer’s reasoning to evidence actually found in the record. Reliance on untraceable financial information therefore undermined the justification for the refusal itself.

• Family Immigration Records Could Be Extrinsic Evidence

The Respondent argued that information from the husband’s immigration file was not extrinsic because he was a family member. The Court rejected that categorical position, noting prior cases treating immigration records belonging to relatives as extrinsic evidence. Family connection alone does not automatically make such information part of an applicant’s case.

• Applicants Were Entitled to Respond

Because the officer relied on external information that was not shown to have been before the applicants, procedural fairness required an opportunity to respond. The applicants might, for example, have shown that the husband’s tuition was already paid and no longer reduced the family’s available resources.

• No Evidence Showed Prior Knowledge of the Records

The Court did not hold that family immigration records will always trigger procedural fairness obligations. However, there was no evidence that these applicants knew the relevant details from the husband’s file would be used against them. In those circumstances, the failure to disclose and invite a response was unfair.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and remitted the applications to a different decision-maker for redetermination. The Court rejected the Respondent’s mootness and misleading-evidence arguments, declined to admit a late affidavit, and certified no question.

Case Citation:

Sopeyin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1435 (CanLII)