Cervjakova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Cervjakova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2019-09-17
Neutral citation
2019 FC 1186
File numbers
IMM-6344-18
Decision Content
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