Ugoeke v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 881

By services, 15 May, 2025
Is tax content
Not tax content (predicted)
Citation
Citation name
2025 FC 881
Decision date
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
977558
Extra import data
{
"field_court_parentheses": "",
"field_external_guid": [
"url::decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/528176/index"
],
"field_full_style_of_cause": "",
"field_import_body_hash": "884edb4c01cede6f8259b215903fc5a675c7ca0ac3e7f88dd45b7de3ae9cc036",
"field_informal_procedure": false,
"field_year_parentheses": "",
"field_source_url": {
"url": "https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/528176/index.do",
"title": "",
"attributes": [],
"original_title": "",
"original_url": "https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/528176/index.do"
}
}
Style of cause
Ugoeke v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Main text

Date: 20250513


Docket: IMM-2261-25

Citation: 2025 FC 881

Edmonton, Alberta, May 13, 2025

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond

BETWEEN:

CHIKA BLESSING UGOEKE

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

(Simplified Procedure – Study Permit Pilot Project)

[1] Mr. Ugoeke, a citizen of Nigeria, is seeking judicial review of the refusal of a permit to study for a Bachelor’s degree in computing or information technology at the University of Manitoba. A visa officer refused his application because he failed to bring evidence of sufficient financial resources.

[2] This case was dealt with in writing, on consent of the parties, as part of the Court’s Study Permit Pilot project. I am granting leave. I am also granting the application. My reasons follow.

[3] On judicial review, the Court’s role is not to reweigh the evidence nor to craft reasons that the officer failed to provide. Rather, the Court’s role is to decide whether the officer’s decision was reasonable in light of the record. Officers are not required to provide lengthy or detailed reasons, as long as the Court can understand why the decision was made.

[4] The main reason the officer gave for the finding of insufficient resources is that the maturity date of two investment certificates intended to cover his expenses was in the future and that the funds would therefore not be available. This is clearly wrong. Mr. Ugoeke applied for a study permit in November 2024. In the application form, he stated that he intended to begin the program in May 2025. The fact that the investment certificates matured in December 2024 and March 2025 was therefore not an issue. Contrary to the Respondent’s submissions, the letter of acceptance from the University of Manitoba clearly indicated three potential start dates, one of which was in May 2025.

[5] I am unable to say whether the outcome of the application would have been the same had the officer not made this error. Hence, the decision is unreasonable and must be sent back for redetermination.


JUDGMENT in IMM-2261-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. Leave to bring the application for judicial review is granted.

2. The application for judicial review is granted.

3. The decision denying the applicant a study permit is quashed.

4. The matter is remitted to a different officer for reconsideration.

5. There is no question of general importance for certification.

"Sébastien Grammond"

Judge


FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD


Docket:

IMM-2261-25

STYLE OF CAUSE:

CHIKA BLESSING UGOEKE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Submissions on Study Permit Perfected Leave application considered at EDMONTON, ALBERTA pursuant to section 72 of the immigration and refugee protection act

JUDGMENT AND REASONS:

GRAMMOND J.

DATED:

May 13, 2025

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:

Sarbjit Singh Farmaha

For The Applicant

Andrea Mauti

For The Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Beyond Borders Law Professional Corporation

Mississauga, Ontario

For The Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

For The Respondent

Docket
IMM-2261-25