JOLOMI EMMANUEL EJEYE Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2017 FC 513

Date: 20170519 Docket: IMM-4320-16 Citation: 2017 FC 513 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, May 19, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:JOLOMI EMMANUEL EJEYEApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Jolomi Emmanuel Ejeye (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision, dated October 12, 2016, refusing hisapplication for a study permit pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Nigeria.

On February 16, 2015, he applied for a study permit and was refused on March 25, 2015. [3] The Applicant reapplied on May 18, 2015 and was refused on February 29, 2016. He sought judicial review of that decision in causenumber IMM-1580-16. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) agreed to re-determine the application for thestudy permit, upon discontinuance of the application for leave and judicial review. [4] The Applicant’s application was reconsidered and again, a negative decision was rendered, on October 12, 2016.

That decision is thesubject of the within application for judicial review. [5] The Applicant argues that the Officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to advise him of concerns, includingconcerns about his credibility. He pleads that the Officer imported a subjective view of his qualifications and status as student. He alsosubmits that the Officer misinterpreted the Regulations. [6] The Respondent argues that the case raises no issue of procedural fairness or of statutory

interpretation. Rather it is about theassessment of the evidence by the Office, particularly about the financial support available to the Applicant were he given permission tostudy in Canada. [7] The standard of review applicable to issues of procedural fairness is correctness; see the decision in Mission Institute v. Khela, 2014SCC 24 , [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502 at paragraph 79. Credibility findings and questions of mixed fact and law are reviewable on thestandard of reasonableness; see the decisions in Imran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 916 at paragraph13 and Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 53. [8] According to the decision in Dunsmuir, supra at paragraph 47, the standard of reasonableness requires that the decision bejustifiable, intelligible and transparent, and fall within a range of acceptable outcomes. [9] I agree with the Respondent that no breach of procedural fairness arises in this case. The Applicant has not clearly identified such anerror.

The Officer was not obliged to contact him about the contents of his application. [10] However, I am not satisfied that the Officer reached a reasonable conclusion in denying the Applicant’s application. [11] There is no explanation for the Officer’s focus on the Applicant’s age nor why this is relevant to his current application. TheOfficer also unreasonably questioned the Applicant’s previous educational achievements and in my opinion unreasonably expresseddoubt about his work experience.

In my opinion, this misplaced emphasis colours the Officer’s assessment of the application and rendersthe decision unreasonable. [12] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to another officer for re-determination. Thereis no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to another officer for re-determination. There is no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge

FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-4320-16 STYLE OF CAUSE: JOLOMI EMMANUEL EJEYE v. MCI PLACE OF HEARING: toronto DATE OF HEARING: May 4, 2017 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J. DATED: May 19, 2017 APPEARANCES : Ayodele Akenroye For The Applicant A. Leena Jaakkimainen For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Ayodele Akenroye Barrister and Solicitor Mississauga, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent