Docket: IMM-15147-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1935
Ottawa, Ontario, December 8, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Régimbald
|
BETWEEN: |
|
ARSHDEEP SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview and Relevant Facts
[1] Mr. Arshdeep Singh [Applicant] seeks judicial review of an Immigration officer’s [Officer] refusal to grant him a post-graduation work permit [PGWP] [Decision]. The Applicant is a citizen of India who entered Canada on March 9, 2022, under a student visa to study in a Computer Engineering Technician program at Sheridan College.
[2] Following the completion of his studies, the Applicant applied for a PGWP, which was rejected on August 9, 2024, on the ground that he attended school on a part-time basis during his last two semesters (Fall 2023 and Winter 2024), making him ineligible for the PGWP under subsection 205(c)(ii) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (SOR/2002-227) [IRPR].
[3] Foreign students are eligible for a PGWP only if they 1) completed a study program at a designated learning institution in a program of at least eight months, and 2) maintained full-time student status during each semester of their study program (IRPR s 205(c)(ii); and Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s operational instructions guidelines “Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) [R205(c) – C43] – International Mobility Program”
). An exception applies to the second requirement if they studied part-time during their final semester only (Rehman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1021 at para 19; Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1478 at para 8).
[4] The sole issue in this case is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable. The applicable standard of review is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 25 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at paras 7, 39–44 [Mason]). To avoid judicial intervention, the decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility (Vavilov at para 99; Mason at para 59). The decision must be read holistically and contextually, in light of the evidence, the submissions and the context in which it was rendered (Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 at para 47 [Pepa]; Vavilov at paras 94, 97). A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the legal constraints of the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 99, 101, 105, 108, 111, 125-128; Mason at para 73). However, the reviewing Court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker”
(Vavilov at para 125). In determining reasonableness, the reviewing Court must not create its “own yardstick”
and use it to measure what the decision maker did (Pepa at para 48; Vavilov at para 83, and Canada Post Corp. v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67 at para 40). Reasonableness review is not a “rubber-stamping”
exercise, it is a robust form of review (Vavilov at para 13; Mason at para 63). The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100). Any alleged flaws must be “sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable”
or cause the “reviewing court to lose confidence in the outcome reached”
(Vavilov at paras 100, 106; Pepa at para 49).
[5] The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable because the Officer failed to provide a procedural fairness letter to allow him to explain his situation. The Applicant also argues that the Officer failed to acknowledge that his late arrival in Canada was due to the pandemic and the late issuance of his student visa in March 2022, caused delays in completing his courses within the required timeframe. The Applicant further claims that despite these delays, he maintained a full-time status until the Fall 2023 semester where he failed a class, resulting in him having to retake that course as a part-time student during the Winter 2024 semester. Considering these facts, the Applicant states that the Officer failed to exercise his judgment in evaluating his application.
[6] I disagree with the Applicant.
[7] The Applicant attended school part-time during the Fall 2023 and Winter 2024 semesters. Because he enrolled in part-time studies for more than only the allowable final semester, he is not eligible to obtain a PGWP.
[8] The mandatory eligibility requirement that students should maintain their status as full-time students for each academic session of their program with exception to the last session was set by ministerial policy and officers do not have the discretion to change these conditions (Sugagata v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2024 FC 1436 at para 4 [Sugagata]). However, this Court has previously recognized that that officers should exercise “their best judgment and take into account all relevant factors when assessing a student’s compliance with their study permit conditions”
(Munyanyi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 802 at para 25 [Munyanyi]).
[9] While the exercise of an officer’s best judgment includes considering all relevant factors and extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control, the facts and evidence in this case do not demonstrate that the Applicant had extenuating circumstances beyond his control (Munyanyi at para 25; Sugagata at para 5; Tcerkovnaia v Canada 2022 FC 861 [Tcerkovnaia]). The Applicant’s transcript confirms his status as a part-time student during the Fall 2023 and Winter 2024 semesters. No evidence was adduced by the Applicant that the number of courses he registered for during the Fall 2023 semester qualified him as a full-time student by Sheridan College (Tcerkovnaia at para 26). The Applicant was required to retake a specific course that he failed during the Fall 2023 semester. Had the Applicant passed that course, he would not have had to retake it in the Winter 2024 semester and his part-time Fall 2023 semester would have been his last semester, thereby qualifying him for a PGWP. While unfortunate, retaking a course does not constitute an extenuating circumstance.
[10] Moreover, the fact that that the Applicant arrived late in Canada due to the pandemic and the late issuance of his student visa in March 2022 did not have an impact on his part-time enrollment for a second semester in Winter 2024. Consequently, it was reasonable for the Officer to strictly apply the criteria set out in the program delivery instructions (Ofori v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 212 at para 14; Kaura v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 51 [Kaura] para 34; Rehman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1021 at para 19).
[11] Finally, the evidence clearly demonstrates that the Applicant did not meet the program requirements; as a result, the Officer was not obliged to seek further information from him by sending a procedural fairness letter (Kaura at para 41).
[12] I would also comment that the Applicant has adduced new evidence by way of affidavit and raised several new grounds at the hearing that were not raised before the decision maker nor in his memorandum of fact and law before this Court. It is well established that judicial review must proceed on the evidence and arguments that were before the decision maker (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 15-20). Moreover, an applicant must always put their best foot forward before the decision maker to satisfy the requirements of a work permit and there is no right to procedural fairness compelling an officer to alert an applicant and grant them a second opportunity to provide additional information to support their application (Sungai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 825 at paras 8-9). I have nevertheless reviewed the evidence and find that it is insufficient to demonstrate that the Decision is unreasonable because the evidence adduced before the Court does not establish that the Applicant was considered by Sheridan College to be a full-time student for the Fall 2023 semester.
[13] As for the new arguments raised, it is also well established that only arguments included in the memorandum of fact and law may be advanced in oral argument (Kilback v Canada, 2023 FCA 96 at para 41; Tehranimotamed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 548 at para 12). In any event, I have also considered these arguments and find that they are insufficient to establish that the Officer unreasonably found that the Applicant was not eligible for a PGWP. As stated, the Applicant simply did not qualify for a PGWP, having been registered as a part-time student for more than his last session.
[14] The Decision is therefore reasonable on the basis of the evidence and arguments that were before the decision maker and the decision maker did not breach the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness in failing to send him a procedural fairness letter requiring additional information to complete his application for a PGWP.
II. Conclusion
[15] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to certify.
Email this Content