Study Permit Refusal Overturned: The $32,000 That Sat Untouched in Canada

Case: Agha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1364 — judicial review allowed, matter referred back for redetermination by a different officer

What happened

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, applied for a study permit to attend Fanshawe College in London, Ontario, for an 8-month Graduate Certificate program in Marketing Management. It was his third study permit application — his 2023 and 2024 applications had both been refused over concerns about the source of his funds.

For the 2025 application, he filed a Statement of Purpose explaining that part of his funds came from his employment with his mother’s business, where he had worked since 2017 alongside other family members. The business, he said, had been in existence for almost 30 years and was one of the biggest affordable footwear, clothing and fashion accessories stores in Benin City, Edo State. He also said he received financial support from his parents and siblings. In support, he filed an affidavit from his mother, corporate documents, transaction receipts, and the family business’s tax documents.

On the money itself: he had deposited $15,000 CAD into a Guaranteed Investment Certificate (GIC) when he first applied in 2023, and had since transferred additional funds from a USD account, bringing the GIC to approximately $25,000 CAD for the 2025 application. He provided a bank statement for the USD account showing a remaining balance of $6.45 USD after the transfer. He had also already paid $17,258.54 of the $18,067.34 owing in tuition fees.

The officer refused the application. Under paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, the officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, for two reasons: his employment situation did not demonstrate that he was financially established in Nigeria, and his assets and financial situation were insufficient to support his stated purpose of travel.

Notably, the officer did not question the credibility of his evidence. The officer acknowledged the funds in the GIC and the tuition already paid — but found the evidence insufficient because the source of the funds used to pay the tuition and deposited into the GIC remained unclear.

What the Court decided

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review and sent the matter back for redetermination by a different officer:

1. The officer overlooked evidence that pointed the other way. More than $32,000 CAD — the GIC funds plus the tuition already paid — had remained untouched in Canada for over two years while the applicant reapplied. The officer was entitled to assign that evidence little weight, but had a duty to grapple with evidence in the record that ran contrary to the conclusion. The officer did not do so at all.
2. Ignoring contrary evidence makes a decision arbitrary. Where the record contains evidence pointing to an opposite conclusion, the decision-maker must explain how the conclusion was reached notwithstanding that evidence. By not engaging with it in any way, the officer made an arbitrary decision, and the reasons were unintelligible, unjustified and opaque — and therefore unreasonable.
3. Officers have wide discretion, but reasons must still justify the refusal. Visa officers are afforded considerable deference, and extensive reasons are not required given the volume of decisions. But the reasons, read with the record, must adequately explain and justify why the application was refused. Here, the financial analysis was the only basis for the finding that he would not leave Canada — and it left the strongest contrary evidence unaddressed.

Because the reasons were unreasonable, the Court did not need to deal with the applicant’s procedural fairness arguments. No question was certified.

What this means for you

A study permit refusal on financial grounds is challengeable — and this case shows where officers go wrong:

• Money already in Canada counts. A GIC balance and tuition already paid are not abstract promises — they are funds sitting in Canada. If an officer finds your finances insufficient, the reasons must deal with what is already here, not just what is missing.
• An officer can give evidence little weight, but cannot pretend it is not there. The Court’s point is about the reasoning process: contrary evidence must be grappled with, even if the officer ultimately discounts it.
• Source of funds still matters. The refusal turned on where the money came from. Trace it: employment records, business documents, tax filings, affidavits, and transfer records that connect the funds to their source.
• Credibility was not the issue here. The officer did not disbelieve the applicant. The problem was the analysis — a reminder that a refusal can be overturned even when nobody’s honesty is in question.
• Judicial review does not grant the permit. The Court sent the file back to a different officer for a fresh decision. The remedy is a new, properly reasoned assessment — not an approval.

If your study permit was refused on financial grounds, the refusal letter and the officer’s notes matter as much as the refusal itself. A gap in the reasoning can be the ground for review.

How VG Immigration Services can help

If your study permit was refused — especially on financial grounds or source-of-funds concerns — book a consultation at vgis.ca or message us on WhatsApp at 416-578-9269. We review the refusal and the evidence that was before the officer, and advise whether a reapplication with stronger documentation or a judicial review is the right next step.

This post summarizes a Federal Court decision for general information. It is not legal advice for a specific case, and every file turns on its own facts and evidence.