Docket: IMM-325-24
Citation: 2024 FC 1830
Ottawa, Ontario, November 18, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Ngo
BETWEEN: |
RAZI ULLAH |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Context
[1] The Applicant, Razi Ullah [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision dated January 3, 2024, by an Immigration Officer [Officer] denying a study permit [Decision]. The Applicant is a singer and composer from Pakistan with a music production company. He sought a study permit to pursue a Postgraduate certificate in Digital and Content Marketing [Course] in Canada. The objective was to enhance his skills to expand his reach to a wider audience, including through social media. He explained that the programs in Pakistan with similar curriculum are too “basic”
for him to achieve his goal.
[2] The Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law acknowledged that the applicable standard of review on the merits of the Decision is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]), as did the Respondent. I also agree that the applicable standard of review is reasonableness.
[3] Applying the standard of reasonableness, the Court reviews the Decision to assess whether it bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility. The Court must determine whether the Officer justified the Decision with reasons that demonstrate an engagement with the particular circumstances of the case, considered in light of the legal framework that applies (Kashefi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 856, at para 13 [Kashefi]).
[4] When a reviewing court applies the standard of reasonableness, the question is not whether other alternative interpretations or conclusions would have been possible. Rather, it is whether the interpretation chosen by the decision maker passes the muster of reasonableness, even though other interpretations or conclusions might have been possible (Tong v Canada Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2023 FC 625 at para 32). The party challenging the decision, in this case the Applicant, bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
II. Analysis
[5] As I explained to the Applicant at the hearing, on judicial review, the Court cannot determine whether he ought to have been granted the study permit. The issue in this case is whether the Officer’s assessment of the evidence, including the study plan, was reasonable. I find that it was.
[6] In considering a study permit application (temporary resident visas), an Officer is required to assess the factors that might encourage the person applying to want to stay in Canada, as well as the factors that might pull them back to their home country (often referred to as “push and pull factors”
). Family connections in Canada and the country of origin are obviously relevant to this assessment (Kashefi at para 9).
[7] To be reasonable, the Decision needed to demonstrate an engagement with the specific facts of the case, and provide sufficient detail to justify the result. Short, focused and clear reasons will be sufficient, and not every detail needs to be addressed. Decisions on temporary resident visas such as a study permit are also entitled to deference by a reviewing court given the breadth of the Officer’s discretion under the law (Kashefi at paras 14-15).
[8] Respectfully, the Applicant’s arguments amounted to a disagreement on the Officer’s assessment of the evidence. The Applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence - by considering the evidence that the Officer examined and coming to a different conclusion. The Court cannot do so on judicial review (Vavilov para 125). It would be inappropriate for the Court on judicial review to evaluate the sufficiency of the Applicant’s study plan. The legislature intended for this task to be performed exclusively by the Officer.
[9] In the Applicant’s case, the Officer considered and engaged with the totality of the evidence, including his study plan. The Decision is clear that the Officer considered Applicant’s background as an artist, his other businesses, his online presence as well as his objectives in expanding his marketing skills. The Officer considered the Applicant’s financial statements, which included copies of cheques for the businesses identified as well as the social media links provided.
[10] In the Decision, the Officer found the study plan to be unclear on the Applicant’s career intentions and the connection to the Course. In addition, the Officer considered whether the Course would improve his career prospects and found it unclear based on the varying statements in the study plan that referred to different career paths. Failure to provide a clear or specific rationale for pursuing studies in Canada allows an officer to reasonably refuse a study permit (Aryanfar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1712 at para 10).
[11] The Officer considered the high costs associated with pursuing the Course compared to the availability of less expensive alternative courses in Pakistan and online. The Applicant stated that programs in Pakistan were outdated, but provided no evidence supporting his assertion that they were not comparable to the Course’s “better”
curriculum. It was therefore open to the Officer to conclude that they were not satisfied that the proposed studies would improve the Applicant’s career prospects to a degree that would offset the cost of studying abroad.
[12] The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had sufficient financial and employment ties that would compel him to return to Pakistan following the end of his studies. While the Applicant provided links to his businesses and online presence, the record confirmed modest revenues. The Officer’s conclusions with respect to economic prospects were grounded in the evidence.
[13] It was also not unreasonable for the Officer to consider the current socioeconomic and political situation in Pakistan as a factor, which could induce the Applicant to remain in Canada beyond his temporary status. Officers can bring their expertise concerning country conditions and many other factors to bear in exercising the wide discretion afforded to them by the law (Kashefi at para 14).
[14] The Applicant argued that the Decision did not specifically mention his family ties in Pakistan. In the Decision, the Officer mentioned that the Applicant’s wife was employed by one of his businesses. I cannot find that the Officer “missed”
evidence related to the Applicant’s family. Given the other factors the Officer considered, their conclusions, and reading the Decision holistically, I also cannot find that not specifically mentioning his family ties in Pakistan renders the Decision unreasonable.
[15] The Applicant objects to the language in the Decision where the Officer stated that he was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of the authorized study period. However, this reflects the requirements described in the law. The Applicant did not meet his burden to convince the Officer to grant him a study permit.
[16] Finally, the Applicant alleges in his written submissions that he was denied procedural fairness because he was not given an opportunity to address the Officer’s concerns regarding the purpose of studying in Canada. However, the Officer is not required to notify the Applicant of the inadequacies in the materials he provided. The onus is on the applicant to submit sufficient evidence to support his application (Punhani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1222, at para 25).
III. Conclusion
[17] The Officer’s conclusions were grounded in the record before them, and in compliance with the legal requirements on the assessment of a study permit application. The Decision is transparent, intelligible and justifiable in light of the legal and factual constraints that bear on it. As such, I do not find that the Decision is unreasonable. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[18] The parties do not propose any question for certification and I agree that in these circumstances, none arise.
Email this Content