Judge pans visa officer’s decision denying woman a study permit

Article content

A Federal Court judge has overturned a visa officer’s decision “completely devoid of meaningful analysis” that denied a Ghanian woman’s request to study in Nova Scotia and barred her from Canada for five years.

Laila Adbul Rahim applied for a study permit to pursue a bachelor’s degree at Cape Breton University in Sydney, N.S. But a visa officer’s questions about how much money her brother — who was willing to sponsor her education in Canada — had in the bank resulted in her application being refused.

Article content

“Administrative decision-making requires, at minimum, a demonstration of rational analysis connecting evidence to conclusions,” said Justice Russel Zinn.

“The officer’s decision before me fails to meet even this basic threshold. In four sentences, the officer managed to render a decision with profound consequences on the applicant while providing virtually no analysis, ignoring contrary evidence, and relying on an undisclosed and unexplained verification process. Where, as here, a decision-maker fails to provide even the barest bones of reasoned analysis, this court must intervene.”

Zinn allowed Rahim’s application for a judicial review, set aside the decision denying her a study permit and sent her case back to officials at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada “to be considered by a different decision-maker.”

Rahim testified that the decision denying her a study permit “was made in a procedurally unfair manner, and is unreasonable.”

The judge agreed with her in his Dec. 19 decision. “I have serious questions regarding the officer’s selected process; however, the unreasonableness of the decision is sufficient to dispose of this application,” Zinn said.

Article content

Article content

Problems with her initial study permit application arose when Rahim submitted a bank statement from her brother covering the period from Dec. 1, 2021, to April 4, 2022.

“This was accompanied by ancillary documentation including her brother’s letter of sponsorship, passport, tax clearance certificate, and both his certificate of registration and business registration documents,” Zinn said.

“While the application initially proceeded smoothly, circumstances changed on Aug. 25, 2022, when the Canadian Mission in Accra was sent information pertaining to (his) bank statement.”

The visa officer had contacted the compliance department of her brother’s bank “asking for confirmation that the document was legitimately issued, and, if so, that no alterations had been made to it,” Zinn said.

“The brief response to this request was to advise that ‘the statement presented DOES NOT reflect the records on the account.’”

Article content

That prompted the visa officer to send Rahim a procedural fairness letter on Oct. 7, 2022 raising concerns that the bank statement was not genuine. Such letters are meant to inform applicants of their rights and give people the opportunity to make their case.

“Please explain how you obtained this document and why it was submitted in support of this application,” it said.

Rahim responded a week later, saying she got the bank statement from her brother, “who has been caring for me since my school days. I submitted it in support of my study application because, my brother … is willing to finance and sponsor my education.”

She added an update of his current bank balance “to clear any doubts of ingenuity.”

The brother’s updated statement “was accompanied by a formal letter from GCB Bank, dated October 11, 2022, which bore both an official stamp and signature and attested to the authenticity of the bank statement,” said Zinn’s decision.

The brother’s bank statement covered the period from Dec. 1, 2021, to Oct. 11, 2022. “We wish to state that the statement emanates from this office and is a true reflection of our customer’s standing with the bank.”

Article content

But the visa officer denied Rahim’s study permit on March 27, 2023 “and found her inadmissible (to Canada) for five years due to misrepresentation.”

The visa officer gave “very limited weight to the documents (Rahim) provided in response to the” procedural fairness letter questioning the authenticity of her brother’s bank statement.

The deficiencies in reasoning are particularly troubling

“I note similarities between the statement initially submitted and the one provided in response to the (procedural fairness letter) as well as inconsistencies in the information provided in the document,” said the visa officer. “This negatively affects the weight given to the documents provided in support of the response to the (procedural fairness letter). In my assessment, I give more weight to the information obtained through the verification process from a reliable source of information and who is not an interested party to this application.”

The judge was not satisfied with that response.

“With this meagre reasoning, the officer arrived at a finding of misrepresentation that has serious impacts on the applicant, barring her from Canada for five years and impugning her character,” Zinn said.

Article content

“While the length of reasons alone is never determinative, this decision bears strong marks of unreasonable administrative decision-making.”

The visa officer’s “vague reference to unspecified ‘similarities’ and ‘inconsistencies’ between bank statements represents the antithesis of transparent reasoning,” Zinn said.

“These allusions to documentary issues, without any identification or explanation of their nature, leave both the applicant and this court guessing at the basis of the officer’s concerns. Not a single similarity is identified. Not one inconsistency is explained. For this court to find such analysis reasonable would require an act of faith rather than reason.”

The judge found that the visa officer’s “complete failure to engage with the bank’s authentication letter submitted in response to the (procedural fairness letter) demonstrates a remarkable indifference to contrary evidence.”

The visa officer’s “complete disregard of official bank authentication that squarely contradicted concerns about document genuineness is inexplicable,” Zinn said.

Article content

“The deficiencies in reasoning are particularly troubling given the gravity of a misrepresentation finding.”

Immigration officials’ “attempt to salvage this decision by identifying specific inconsistencies post hoc only serves to highlight the inadequacy of the officer’s original reasoning,” Zinn said, noting they pointed out the two bank statements show the same deposit under different names.

“While this might be a legitimate inconsistency warranting scrutiny, it appears nowhere in the officer’s analysis,” said the judge.

“While this court readily acknowledges the operational pressures facing visa officers and the deference their expertise commands, such considerations cannot be employed to bootstrap a decision completely devoid of meaningful analysis. The officer’s decision fails to demonstrate the rational chain of analysis that forms the bedrock of reasonable administrative decision-making … and must be set aside.”

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content