There is growing jurisprudence involving study permit applications by minors.
Purpose of Study
There is somewhat mixed jurisprudence involving how specific a minor’s rationale to study in Canada must be.
In Ahmadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1208, Justice Gleeson stated that a visa officer refusal did not engage with the following:
In this instance, the PA’s application detailed a series of reasons for pursuing the PA’s grade 4 education in Canada. The reasons advanced in the application explained that: (1) studies outside of Iran were viewed as beneficial to the PA; (2) efforts to have the PA study in Turkey had not been successful; (3) the objective of studying abroad was to help the PA improve his English skills; (4) Canada was a more affordable option than the United Kingdom; (5) the family had the financial means to pay for the PA to study abroad; and (6) the presence of family friends and a Farsi speaking community in North Vancouver would assist the PA in integrating.
The GCMS notes address the rational for seeking the study permit: “similar programs are available closer to the applicant’s place of residence. Motivation to pursue studies in Canada does not seem reasonable given that a comparative course is offered in their home country for a fraction of the cost.”
This explanation might well be sufficient where an applicant seeking a study permit has relied on circumstances that could evidently be satisfied or fulfilled by similar grade 4 study programs closer to home. This was the situation in Jafari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1761 [Jafari] on which the Respondent relies. In Jafari, the Applicant intended to pursue grade 2 studies in Canada for the primary purpose of improving English language skills. The evidence in that case demonstrated that the applicant’s mother was an English language teacher. The Court concluded that it was reasonable for the Officer to rely solely on the availability of similar programs in making their decision.
In Naghianfesharaki v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1489, a visa officer refused a 7-year old’s application in part because the officer determined that the child’s proposed studies were not reasonable given their career path. In setting aside the decision, Justice Brown wrote:
The Respondent says there is no explanation why the PA wishes to study grade two at a public school in Canada. The Respondent’s opposition to judicial review is more general. The Respondent in its Memorandum provides an example of what a reasonable study plan might be in a case like this (at paragraph 22):
“…for the purposes of this discussion, let’s assume that the minor Applicant’s parents indicated in the application that they intended for her to be a professional ballerina or an elite-level gymnast. Let’s also assume that she had been enrolled in a school in Iran that provided that type of specialized training (ignoring, for the moment, the obvious religious restrictions for those type of activities in Iran). The minor Applicant’s parents could then assert that the prospective school in Canada was more suited to their intended career path for their child or in keeping with the child’s education history. The Officer’s comments on this point were not absurd.”
In oral argument, Counsel for the Respondent suggested a child MENSA candidate might be an appropriate candidate for a study permit where special schooling might be reasonable.
I understand these example explanations could be satisfactory. However, it seems to me they put the bar too high and could, if adopted, unreasonably limit access to the study permit stream where the Minister in relevant regulations, policies, guidelines and programs expresses no such limitation. Likewise, no such limitation is found expressly or implicitly in the Decisions at hand.