Ugorji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Ugorji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-03-28 Neutral citation 2025 FC 571 File numbers IMM-3350-24 Decision Content Date: 20250328 Docket: IMM-3350-24 Citation: 2025 FC 571 Ottawa, Ontario, March 28, 2025 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland BETWEEN:

EKECHUKWU ODINACHI UGORJI Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] This is the judicial review of the decision of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] officer rejecting the application of Ekechukwu Odinachi Ugorji, the Applicant, for an open work permit. [2] The Applicant is a citizen and resident of Nigeria. The Applicant’s spouse [Spouse] is a student at Algonquin College in Ontario, Canada and possesses a study permit that was valid until January 31, 2025. In November 2023, the Applicant submitted an application for an open work permit to join his Spouse in Canada. [3] By refusal letter dated January 31, 2024, an IRCC officer [Officer] informed the Applicant that his application did not meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRP Regulations]. Specifically, the Officer refused the application because they were not satisfied that the Applicant provided sufficient proof of funds to support his stay in Canada. His application was therefore refused under s 200(1)(b) of the IRP Regulations. [4] The GCMS Notes, which form part of the Officer’s reasons, state: Application reviewed. Applicant has applied for an open work permit and intends to join their spouse in Canada. Limited proof of funds on file, bank statement show lump sum deposit, no provenance on file. I am not satisfied funds

are sufficient to support both spouse and applicant during their stay in Canada. Application refused as per R200(1)(b). [5] The sole issue arising in the application for judicial review is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable. The parties submit and I agree that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. This asks this court to: “develop an understanding of the decision maker’s reasoning process in order to determine whether the decision as a whole is reasonable. To make this determination, the reviewing court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99 [Vavilov]). The Decision was Reasonable. Applicant’s Position [6] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s reasoning regarding his financial situation lacks intelligibility and justification, and does not accord with the evidence in the record. He submits that he presented sufficient evidence that demonstrated his ability to sustain himself during his temporary stay in Canada, including his bank statement, which demonstrates that he has the equivalent of approximately $8,671 Canadian Dollars [CDN]. He also submits that provided evidence, beyond

the funds at his disposal, that his Spouse has $10,000 CDN in her bank account, which is accessible to him. He submits that this Court has found that operational guidelines permit officers to consider the presence of family members in Canada as a form of financial support (citing Girn v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1222 at paras 31–34). Further, that the Officer relied on boilerplate statements, failed to engage with the Applicant’s specific financial circumstances, failed to explain how the Applicant’s significant assets and savings are insufficient and did not clearly establish his financial propensity, and ignored financial evidence that contradicted the Officer’s finding (citing Gao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 127; Kashefi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856 as analogous, and other cases). The Applicant submits that the Officer further erred in that there is no rational connection between the Officer’s conclusions in the GCMS notes and the refusal letter (citing Persaud v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1252 at paras 10–11). Respondent’s Position [7] The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s arguments amount to an improper dispute over the adequacy of the Officer’s reasons. The mere fact that the reasons do not include all of the arguments or other details that a reviewing judge would have preferred is not,

on its own, a basis to set aside a decision. As was noted by the Officer, the Applicant’s bank statements displayed large, unexplained lump sum deposits. In that regard, the Respondent notes the bank statement’s opening and closing balance, as well as several large unattributed deposits. The Respondent submits that this supports that the Officer reasonably found the bank statements to be insufficient proof of funds. Regarding the Spouse’s Canadian bank statement, this is simply a snapshot of her banking information on one day and there was no information as to the source of those funds or whether they were required for her tuition. The Respondent also points to other alleged deficiencies in the Applicant’s evidence, such as a lack of documents demonstrating that, in addition to his salary, he has income from contracts as a part-time lecturer and from his rental properties. The Respondent submits that this Court has held that it is reasonable for a visa officer to have concerns about the source of an applicant’s funds and to refuse a visa on that basis or where insufficient evidence was provided with respect to the source of funds. And, ultimately, the Officer’s decision does not turn on the amount of money held by the Applicant, but on the Applicant’s failure to provide evidence relating to the source of this money. Analysis [8] First, I disagree with the Applicant that the

Officer relied solely on boilerplate or standard form language in reaching their decision. This Court has held that the use of boilerplate language is not in itself objectionable, so long as a reviewing court is satisfied that the decision-maker turned their minds to the facts of the case (see, for example, Safarian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 775 at para 3). That is the circumstance in this case. As will be discussed further below, the Officer explained that there was limited proof of funds on file and, specifically, that the Applicant’s bank statement showed lump sum deposits. The GCMS notes indicate that the provenance of the Applicant’s funds was at issue. This demonstrates that the Officer engaged with the specific facts of the case and made findings based on same. [9] I also do not agree with the Applicant that the Officer’s conclusion of “no provenance on file” lacks intelligibility. The Applicant submits that he provided payslips which demonstrate a consistent monthly earning of $450.87 CDN, thereby establishing provenance. While that may be so, on my reading of the GCMS notes, the Officer’s determination of “no provenance on file” was connected to their finding regarding the lump sum deposits in the Applicant’s bank statement. [10] The Applicant’s bank statement is from Zenith Bank PLC from the period of February 18, 2023 to August 17, 2023. It

states that the opening balance was 127,629.82 Nigerian Naira [NGN] (approximately $120 CDN) and the closing balance was 5,017,566.97 NGN (approximately $4,660 CDN). Over the course of the six-month period, the bank statement shows numerous sizeable deposits with no discernable explanation as to source. For example, on March 7, 2023, the Applicant deposited 4,350,000 NGN (approximately $4,040 CDN) with the description being “NIP/UBNUGORJI ODINACHI EKECHUKWU/UIP IFO EKECHUKWU”. On April 4, 2023, 6,300,000 NGN (approximately $5,850 CDN) was deposited, the description of which was “NIP/FDP/CITY OF ADORATION MINISTRY/NIP/EKECHUKWU UGORJI”. And, as noted by the Respondent, six days before the end of the bank statement period, the Applicant made four separate deposits of 500,000 NGN (approximately $1,860 CDN total) with the description of “UGORJI EKECUKWU” and, on the final day of the bank statement period, the Applicant deposited a further 2,000,000 NGN (approximately $1,860 CDN) into his account. The description for the deposit reads “HGRYY//TRF FROM CHIZOBA M CHUKWU”. [11] Thus, the bank statement evidence that was before the Officer establishes that there were multiple lump sum deposits. The bank statement does not clarify the source of these funds. [12] In his visa application, the Applicant stated, with respect to financial support for the initial period of his stay, that he

has over five million naira which is equivalent to over $9,000 CDN: “This money was made from my personal savings from my take home salary and also from other contracts I did as a part time lecturer”. As to his assets in Nigeria, he stated that he owns about eleven properties in Nigeria, which he manages, “and the rents are accrueable from them”. A letter from his employer states that the Applicant’s salary as a senior office administrator is 3,300,000 NGN annually (approximately $3,065 CDN annually or $255 CDN monthly). His payslips indicate that he received a net pay of 250,000 NGN per month. [13] The Applicant attributed the source of his bank statement funds to his salary and contract work. However, his monthly salary does not explain the lump sum deposits. There is also no evidence in the record of any part-time lecturer contracts or of any payment to which he was entitled and he received from same. Similarly, there is no evidence of any rental agreements or of any rental payments received. While the record does contain a deed of transfer, an irrevocable deed of grant, and power of attorney documents granting the Applicant power of attorney over parcels of land, none of these documents speak to the Applicant’s alleged rental income. [14] Put differently, the concern with the Applicant’s bank statement was with the source or provenance of his funds – and thus whether they

would actually be available, and therefore sufficient, to the Applicant to support his stay in Canada – which concern was not allayed by his supporting evidence. It was his onus to provide all the material necessary for a favourable decision to be made (see Singh v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 84 at para 21). [15] Accordingly, it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient proof of funds to support his stay, in part due to a bank statement that contained lump sum deposits for which there was no provenance on file. [16] Beyond his bank statement, the Applicant submits that he provided other evidence that spoke to the sufficiency of his funds but that this was not referred to and analyzed by the Officer. This included his payslips from May to August 2023, evidence of his assets, and his wife’s Canadian bank statement indicating that she had $10,000 CDN. [17] In my view, it was reasonable for the Officer to determine that the Applicant’s payslips, showing a monthly salary of 250,000 NGN (approximately $235 CDN) for four months, amounted to insufficient funds. Even in aggerate, the deposits demonstrated by the bank statement over four months amount to less than $1,000 CDN. It is within a visa officer’s discretion, based on their knowledge and expertise, to make such an assessment (see, for example, Wardak v

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 582 at para 70). There is also no evidence in the record that this salary would continue during the Applicant’s absence. Moreover, regarding the Applicant’s assets, the Applicant’s evidence consists of documents concerning land ownership but does not include any evidence that he is or will be liquidating those assets. [18] The Applicant’s counsel’s written submissions in support of the open work permit stated that the Applicant’s Spouse has $10,000 CDN in her bank account. The record includes an Account Information page from the Royal Bank of Canada for the Spouse, which states that on September 25, 2023, the Spouse had $10,239.91 CDN in her bank account as well as a credit card limit of $1,000 CDN, of which $86.72 CDN had been used. [19] I agree that it would have been preferable for the Officer to have explicitly referred to this bank statement. However, the Officer did state that they were not satisfied that there were sufficient funds “to support both spouse and the applicant” during their stay in Canada. The only evidence as to the Spouse’s funds is the Account Information dated September 25, 2023. However, the record also contains a Letter of Acceptance from Algonquin College dated August 15, 2023. This estimates the Spouse’s tuition fees for two semesters to be $17,000 CDN (of which $1,502.63 CDN had been received) with the

balance due on January 29, 2024. The Letter of Acceptance also estimates living expenses for twelve months to be $15,000 CDN. Although the Applicant submits on judicial review that his Spouse’s $10,000 CDN is accessible to him, there is no evidence in the record to confirm that those funds are available to him to support his stay in Canada. Given the Spouse’s documented anticipated expenses and the lack of evidence that her bank account balance was available to also support the Applicant’s stay in Canada, the Officer’s rationale can be inferred from the record. Thus, although the Officer’s reasons could have contained greater detail, they are sufficient to permit the Court to understand the basis for the decision when considered in light of the record (see Vavilov, at para 94; Zeifmans LLP v Canada, 2022 FCA 160 at paras 9–10; Arodu v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1476 at para 32). Accordingly, the Officer’s finding was reasonable. [20] Further, nor do any of the other documents referred to by the Applicant, but not explicitly referenced by the Officer, contradict the Officer’s finding that the limited proof of funds found in the record was sufficient to support the Applicant and his Spouse during their stay in Canada. The Officer did not err in failing to expressly address each of those documents. [21] In conclusion, for the reasons above, the decision is reasonable. JUDGMENT IN IMM-3350-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed; There shall be no order as to costs; and No question was proposed for certification and none arises. "Cecily Y. Strickland" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3350-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: EKECHUKWU ODINACHI UGORJI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: March 25, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: STRICKLAND J. DATED: march 28, 2025 APPEARANCES: James Feliks Morrison For The Applicant Zofia Rogowska For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Zarei Law Professional Corporation Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent