Date: 20190917
Docket: IMM-6344-18
Citation: 2019 FC 1186
Toronto, Ontario, September 17, 2019
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
|
TATIANA CERVJAKOVA
|
Applicant
|
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Mrs. Tatiana Cervjakova (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a visa officer (the “Officer”) refusing her application 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 the Immigration 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, ignored relevant evidence.
[4]
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Applicant failed to produce evidence to support her application 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 and Immigration), 2016 FC 472 at paragraph 9.
[6]
According to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be justifiable, transparent and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that 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 and Immigration), 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 a different 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 the matter 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
|