2019 FC, 2019 FC 1186

Date: 20190917 Docket: IMM-6344-18 Citation: 2019 FC 1186 Toronto, Ontario, September 17, 2019 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: TATIANA CERVJAKOVAApplicantand THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mrs.

Tatiana Cervjakova (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a visa officer (the “Officer”) refusing herapplication for a study permit. [2] That application was made pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 21 (the “Act”) and theImmigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”). [3] The Applicant argues that the Officer unreasonably refused her application for a study permit and, among other things, ignoredrelevant evidence. [4] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Applicant failed to produce evidence to support herapplication and the refusal by the Officer was reasonable. [5] The decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Akomolafe v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2016 FC 472 at paragraph 9. [6] 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 justifiable, transparent and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomesthat are defensible on the law and the facts. [7] In my opinion, the Officer’s decision fails to meet the applicable standard of review. [8] I am not satisfied that the Officer reasonably considered the evidence submitted by the Applicant. [9] The Officer, in my opinion, carried out a perfunctory assessment following the Applicant’s successful challenge, by judicial review,to the first refusal of her application for a study permit; see the decision in Cervjakova v.

Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2018 FC 1052. [10] In the result, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter is remitted to adifferent officer for re-determination. [11] There is no question for certification. JUDGMENT in IMM-6344-18 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and thematter remitted to a different officer for re-determination; there is no question for certification arising. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: IMM-6344-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: TATJANA CERVJAKOVA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 APPEARANCES : H.J. Yehuda Levinson For The applicant Brad Gotkin For The respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Levison & Associates Barristers & Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The applicant Attorney General of Canada For The respondent