2018 FC, 2018 FC 1262

Date: 20181212 Docket: IMM-2262-18 Citation: 2018 FC 1262 Vancouver, British Columbia, December 12, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:NNE MODELINE NSIEGBEApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIPAND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Nne Modeline Nsiegbe (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) refusing herrequest for a study permit. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria.

She is a nurse and at the time of applying for the study permit, she was working in theKingdom of Saudi Arabia on a work permit that is valid until August 1, 2021. She was granted a leave of absence to pursue studies inCanada, for a period of 18 months, beginning in July 2018. [3] The Officer denied the application because he was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay or thatshe had sufficient available financial resources to support herself in Canada, pursuant to subsection 216(1) and subsections 220(

a) to (c)of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”). [4] In the Global Case Management System notes, the Officer recorded that there was limited evidence of the Applicant’s establishmentin Saudi Arabia. The Officer expressed concern that recent transfers to the Applicant’s bank account were made for the purpose ofinflating her financial resources, in that the money did not come from her regular employment income. [5] The Applicant pleads that the decision is unreasonable because it is inconsistent with the evidence provided.

She also argues that theOfficer breached the requirements of procedural fairness by failing to give her the opportunity to respond to any concerns. [6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the decision is reasonable and that there was no breachof procedural fairness. [7] The merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Solopova v.

Canada (Citizenship andImmigration), 2016 FC 690. [8] The issue of a breach of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v.Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 , [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339. [9] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard ofreasonableness requires that a decision be transparent, justifiable and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomesthat are defensible on the law and the facts. [10] In my opinion, the decision of the Officer does not meet this standard. [11] I see no foundation in the evidence submitted to support the conclusion of the Officer that the Applicant inflated her bank accountfor the purpose of her application for a study permit. [12] The evidence submitted shows transfers from one account of the Applicant into another account. [13] If the Officer was concerned about the source of those funds, he could have inquired of the Applicant about the status of that otheraccount.

No authority was cited to support the notion that an applicant cannot transfer funds from one account to another, for thepurpose of showing financial stability. [14] There is nothing in the record to contradict the Applicant’s deposition that she has paid the tuition fees in full. [15] Second, the Officer assessed the likelihood of the Applicant’s departure from Canada against Saudi Arabia, rather than in respect ofher country of nationality, that is Nigeria. [16] The evidence is clear that the Applicant enjoys temporary status in Saudi Arabia, pursuant to a work permit issued by that country. [17] In my opinion, it was unreasonable for the Officer to overlook her return to Nigeria. [18] The application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Officer set aside and the matter remitted to another Officerfor re-determination.

There is no question for certification arising.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2262-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Officer set aside and the matter remitted to another Officer for re-determination. There is no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2262-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: NNE MODELINE NSIEGBE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2018 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J.

DATED: December 12, 2018 APPEARANCES : Malvin J Harding For The Applicant Tasneem Karbani For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Malvin J Harding Barrister and Solicitor Surrey, British Columbia For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent