GABRIEL EHIKIOYA EIDANGBE, KIMBERLY OSEREME EIDANGBE, ALEXANDERSON OSEGHALE EIDANGBE, EHINOME GABRIEL EIDANGBE, SARAH FATIMA EIDANGBE, EFUA PEARL EIDANGBE v. AIZENOSE FAITH EIDANGBE, 2018 FC 138

Date: 20180207 Docket: IMM-2171-17 Citation: 2018 FC 138 Calgary, Alberta, February 7, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:GABRIEL EHIKIOYA EIDANGBE, KIMBERLY OSEREME EIDANGBE, ALEXANDERSON OSEGHALE EIDANGBE,EHINOME GABRIEL EIDANGBE,SARAH FATIMA EIDANGBE,EFUA PEARL EIDANGBE ANDAIZENOSE FAITH EIDANGBEApplicantsandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr.

Gabriel Ehikioya Eidangbe (the “Principal Applicant”), his wife Sarah Fatima Eidangbe and their children Kimberly OseremeEidangbe, Alexanderson Oseghale Eidangbe, Ehinome Gabriel Eidangbe, Efua Pearl Eidangbe and Aizenose Faith Eidangbe (collectively“the Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of a Visa Officer (the “Officer”) working at the Canadian High Commission inLagos, Nigeria. In that decision, dated April 27, 2017, the Officer refused the Applicants’ application for a Temporary Resident Visa(“TRV”). [2] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria.

The Principal Applicant applied for a TRV in July 2016, for the purpose of visiting a friend inCanada and otherwise, touring around Toronto and southern Ontario. [3] The application was refused by a decision dated October 11, 2016.

Upon applying for leave and judicial review in cause numberIMM-4459-16 that decision was set aside upon the motion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) and thematter remitted to a different Officer for redetermination. [4] Following that redetermination, the negative decision of April 27, 2017 was rendered. [5] The Applicants now argue that their rights to procedural fairness were breached by the Officer’s failure to communicate his concernsabout the financial information, by his reference to extrinsic information to calculate the costs of their trip without giving them theopportunity to respond and by asking for updated information rather than deciding their application upon the information originallysubmitted. [6] The Applicants also submit that the consent judgment in cause number IMM-4459-17 gives rise to issue estoppel. [7] Finally, the Applicants argue that the Officer unreasonably considered the lack of visits to family members in the United State andSweden in refusing their request to come to Canada as visitors. [8] For his part, the Respondent submits that the Applicants have shown no reviewable error on the part of the Officer and theapplication for judicial review should be dismissed. [9] Whether the Applicants’ arguments about procedural fairness are reviewable on the standard of correctness or reasonableness, I seeno such breach as alleged. [10] I agree with the Respondent that the duty of procedural fairness arising in respect of a TRV is at the low end of the scale.

I seenothing irregular in the Officer taking steps to estimate the costs of the proposed travel to Canada.

It was not necessary for the Officer toreview those costs with the Applicants. [11] However, I am not satisfied that the Officer’s consideration of the evidence about the family income meets the test of“reasonableness” set out in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 that is justifiable, intelligible andtransparent and falls within a range of possible and acceptable outcomes. [12] Equally, I am not satisfied that the Officer’s comments about the lack of family travel to visit other family members in the UnitedStates and Sweden were reasonable or relevant. [13] In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to a differentOfficer for redetermination.

There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT for IMM-2171-17 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision set aside and the matter remitted to a

different Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-2171-17 STYLE OF CAUSE: GABRIEL EHIKIOYA EIDANGBE, KIMBERLY OSEREME EIDANGBE, ALEXANDERSON OSEGHALE EIDANGBE, EHINOME GABRIEL EIDANGBE, SARAH FATIMA EIDANGBE, EFUA PEARL EIDANGBE AND AIZENOSE FAITH EIDANGBE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: January 25, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J.

DATED: february 7, 2018 APPEARANCES : Josephat Nwabuokei For The Applicants Leanne Briscoe For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Notary Public Blue House Law Professional Corporation Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicants Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent