Docket: IMM-3363-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2067
Toronto, Ontario, December 19, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant
BETWEEN: |
AMIRHOSSEIN KAZEMI |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. OVERVIEW
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a Visa Officer’s decision to refuse his study permit. The Officer found he would not leave Canada at the end of his stay, based on his lack of family ties outside of Canada, and based on the stated purpose of his visit.
[2] For the brief reasons that follow, I will grant this application for judicial review, as I find that the Officer’s decision was not responsive to the application submitted by the Applicant.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Facts
[3] Mr. Kazemi is a citizen of Iran. He currently holds a Bachelors of Law degree from the Islamic Azad University and works as a Legal Advisor at a law firm in Tehran. Mr. Kazemi aspires to establish a new international business law consulting firm. As well, his current employer is establishing an international business management consulting department, which Mr. Kazemi was asked to lead. In support of these goals, he applied for and was accepted into the Master’s of Business Administration Program [MBA] at University Canada West [UCW]. As a result, he applied for a study permit to come to Canada.
B. Decision under Review
[4] A Visa Officer rejected the Applicant’s study permit by letter dated February 15, 2023. The Officer was not satisfied that Mr. Kazemi would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, as a) he does not have significant family ties outside of Canada, and b) the purpose of his visit was not consistent with a temporary stay.
[5] In notes entered into the Global Case Management System [GCMS], which form part of the reasons for decision, the Officer found that they were not satisfied that the Applicant’s family ties are sufficiently strong (or documented) to warrant a return to Iran. The Officer noted that Mr. Kazemi is single, mobile, and has no dependents; and that he has strong ties to Canada, as his sister resides here.
[6] The Officer further stated:
The applicant’s study plan refers to general advantageous comments regarding the value of international education in Canada and makes sweeping statements on how the education will improve the applicant’s situation in Iran. Applicant does not provide supporting details or explanation on how the program of study would benefit their professional development in Iran. The employer's letter lacks details on the applicant's employment, potential promotion and purpose between the promotion and the program of study.
III. ISSUES
[7] The only matter at issue is whether the Visa Officer’s decision to refuse Mr. Kazemi’s study permit was reasonable.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[8] The standard of review applicable to the substance of a visa officer’s decision is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 23 [Vavilov].
V. ANALYSIS
[9] As noted, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant’s study permit on the basis of two findings: a) that the Applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada, and b) that the purpose of his visit is not consistent with a temporary stay. I will grant this application for judicial review, as I find that the reasons provided in support of both of these findings were unreasonable. The reasons lacked transparency and were not responsive to the evidence submitted by Mr. Kazemi in support of his study permit application.
A. Family Ties
[10] On the first finding, the Officer noted that Mr. Kazemi has strong ties to Canada, as his sister resides here. In isolation, this was a reasonable finding: the Applicant referred to his sister in his application, and indicated in his Study Plan that he would reside with her for the duration of his studies. However, this Court’s jurisprudence has established that an officer must consider both the ‘push’ and the ‘pull’ factors of an Applicant: Hassanpour v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1738 at para 19, citing Chhetri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 872 at para 14. Here, the Officer failed to consider Mr. Kazemi’s ties to Iran and thus committed a reviewable error.
[11] In the Applicant’s study plan, he stated that his parents are “in their senior age”
; that his only sister lives in Canada, and that, as the only son in a Persian family, his parents rely on him as they age. The Officer made no mention of, and did not appear to engage with, this evidence.
[12] Given that the Applicant’s submissions regarding his parents were brief and his application focused more significantly on his relationship with his sister in Canada, the Officer was not required to accept that the ties to Iran would prevail, or to give lengthy reasons on that point.
[13] However, the Officer was required to demonstrate that they had weighed Mr. Kazemi’s ties to Iran against his incentives to overstay. The Officer’s failure to demonstrate that they had engaged in this weighing process constitutes a reviewable error: Vafaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1987 at paras 13-14. Put another way, one could read the Officer’s decision, and have no idea that the Applicant had made any submissions in his application as to why he felt obliged to return to Iran following his studies. Viewed from this perspective, it is clear that the Officer failed to weigh the evidence in the Record, and as a consequence, that the decision lacks both transparency and justification.
B. Study Plan
[14] On the second finding, the Officer stated that Mr. Kazemi’s made general sweeping statements about the value of international education in Canada and how it will improve his situation in Iran, but that he did not provide sufficient evidence of how the program of study would benefit his career. From my review of the Record, this is simply an inaccurate characterization of the Applicant’s study permit application.
[15] In his Study Plan, the Applicant explained that he wishes to pursue an MBA in order to create a legal-business consulting firm. He stated that, “it is a legal specialization that considers the legal aspects of running a business.”
The Applicant further noted that this business law consulting specialization is not yet available in Iran, and that it necessitates extensive knowledge of business and law. Mr. Kazemi further detailed that he researched joint JD/MBA programs in Canada, such as the one offered by the University of British Columbia, but decided to pursue an MBA because the joint JD/MBA programs were too long (four years) and he already possessed a Bachelor’s Degree in Law.
[16] It is unclear to me how this plan of study constitutes a general or sweeping statement regarding how the education will improve the Applicant’s situation in Iran. Rather, it appears to be a clear and precise statement as to why Mr. Kazemi wishes to pursue an MBA to supplement his existing degree in Law, and the benefit it would bring to his professional development. The Officer’s reasons on this issue “failed to grapple with the Applicant’s explanation about how the study plan was relevant to [his] career and [his] other expressed motivations”
(Asagba v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1528 at para 24).
[17] The Respondent submits that the Officer’s finding was reasonable, as Mr. Kazemi is already employed as a successful commercial lawyer in Tehran and therefore would derive no benefit from the proposed MBA. With respect, the Respondent’s submissions replicate the Officer’s error. The Applicant explained that he wishes to pursue an MBA not simply to practice commercial law, but to acquire business expertise, which he will combine with his existing legal expertise in order to start a legal-business consulting firm.
[18] The existence of combined JD/MBA programs, such as the one referenced by the Applicant in his study plan, indicates, on its own, a logical overlap between legal and business degree programs. Given that the Applicant already has a legal education, and given his aspiration to create a legal-business consulting firm (which was confirmed in the letter from his employer), I simply see no basis for the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant had failed to provide an explanation as to how his program of study would benefit his professional development. The reality is that the Officer’s reasons were not responsive to the explanation that the Applicant had provided in his Study Plan and the materials he submitted in support of his study permit application. It follows that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable.
VI. CONCLUSION
[19] For the foregoing brief reasons, I will grant this application for judicial review. The parties agreed that there is no question for certification in this matter, and I agree that none arises.
Email this Content