In Nesarzadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 568, the Federal Court of Canada articulated the following general framework for the judicial review of denials of study permit refusals.
- A reasonable decision must explain the result, in view of the law and the key facts.
- Vavilov seeks to reinforce a “culture of justification” requiring the decision-maker to provide a logical explanation for the result and to be responsive to the parties’ submissions, but it also requires the context for decision-making to be taken into account.
- Visa Officers face a deluge of applications, and their reasons do not need to be lengthy or detailed. However, their reasons do need to set out the key elements of the Officer’s line of analysis and be responsive to the core of the claimant’s submissions on the most relevant points.
- The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the Officer that they meet the requirements of the law that applies to consideration of student visas, including that they will leave at the end of their authorized stay.
- Visa Officers must consider the “push” and “pull” factors that could lead an Applicant to overstay their visa and stay in Canada, or that would encourage them to return to their home country.
Specific Issues
In this blog post here on applying for a study permit I have listed several Federal Court of Canada decisions involving specific issues of study permits, including bona fides, funds, grades, and more.
Study Plans
In Askari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1318, Justice Regimbald summarized the law involving interpreting study plans as being:
[30] As held numerous times by the Court, it is not the role of the Officer to determine whether an additional degree is useful to the Applicant or not, without basing its decision on the evidence presented to them (Seyedsalehi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1250 at paras 14-16; Adom v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2019 FC 26, at paragraphs 16, 19; Al Aridi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 381 at para 27; Vahdati at para 13-16). This case is not one where the applicant is seeking a diploma in an undergraduate program when the applicant already holds a master’s degree in the same general field, or where there are inconsistencies between the study plan and the proposed diploma’s utility given the applicant’s existing academic and professional background (Charara v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1176 at paras 37-38). In this case, the master’s program identified by the PA was different than the master’s degree she already held, and was more tailored to Global Health and Human Services Administration while her previous master’s degree was in Chemical Engineering. The Officer offers no reason supporting their conclusion that the degree appears “redundant” in relation to the PA’s reported scholarly and employment history.
[31] Moreover, the PA explained in her Statement of Purpose that a master’s degree would be beneficial to her, including for employment as a social, health and community service manager at her current employment, which was a higher position than what she occupied before. The PA explained in detail why she chose the specific program for which she was seeking the student permit, that other Iranian universities did not offer a similar program, and that experts in the field are highly in demand in Iran. Unfortunately, nothing in the Officer’s reasons or notes indicate how this evidence was assessed in determining that the PA failed to satisfy them that she would leave at the end of her authorized stay, and why it was not sufficient to demonstrate sufficient establishment in Iran.
[32] Given my conclusion that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable for failing to meaningfully grapple with the evidentiary record regarding the Applicants’ establishment in Iran, I do not need to address the Applicants’ argument that the Officer breached their right to procedural fairness.
Refusal Notes