Date: 20251217

Docket: IMM-8896-24

Citation: 2025 FC 1983

Toronto, Ontario, December 17, 2025

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Brouwer

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant Muhammad Mustaqeem seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refusing his application for a study permit. Mr. Mustaqeem, who had already completed secondary school and obtained a diploma in IT Management in Pakistan, intended to enter Grade 11 at USCA Academy, a private school in Mississauga, in order to obtain an Ontario Secondary School Diploma. The Officer, however, determined that Mr. Mustaqeem had not established that he will leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay as required by paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, on the basis that “The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.” The Officer’s notes provide more explanation for the basis upon which this conclusion was reached:

PA is a 19 year old single male, seeking entrance to Grade 11 Ontario secondary school program. PA submitted a secondary school [completion certificate] examination from 2022, it is [unclear] what grade was [achieved]. PA also completed and obtained a diploma in I.T Office Management [in] 2023. Study plan submitted and no clear career path for which the sought educational program would be of benefit. I Fail to see how this intended program is a logical progression in the PA’s study / career path. Given the PA previous education and work history, their motivation to pursue studies in Canada at this point does not seem reasonable. I note that there are institutions available locally or regionally that offer similar programs. Apart from aspiration to seek quality Canadian education, insufficient explanation to justify pursuit of international studies at a significantly higher cost. Given the foregoing, on balance, I am not satisfied as to the stated purpose. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay.

[2] Mr. Mustaqeem applied for leave for judicial review of this decision. Leave was granted and, following an eleventh-hour request for adjournment of an in-person hearing in August 2025, the hearing of the application was scheduled to take place by Zoom on November 20, 2025. Despite confirming his intention to appear at the scheduled time, Mr. Mustaqeem did not appear. The Court - and the Respondent - waited over 20 minutes for the Applicant to log into the hearing. At that point, with no communication from the Applicant, the Court opened the hearing. The Respondent agreed to have the matter determined based on the written records and arguments and the Court reserved its decision and adjourned the hearing. The Court Registry advises that it heard from Mr. Mustaqeem at 10:19AM, 49 minutes after the scheduled start time, advising that he had just tried unsuccessfully to log into the hearing. He was told that the hearing was over.

I. Issues and standard of review

[3] Mr. Mustaqeem asserts that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable because it does not reflect the evidence, and that it was procedurally unfair of the Officer to find contrary to the evidence that his purpose for coming to Canada was inconsistent with a temporary stay.

[4] The standard of review for the merits of the Officer’s decision is reasonableness. To assess whether an administrative decision meets this standard, the Court asks, “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 99 [Vavilov]). A decision that fundamentally misapprehends fails to account for the evidence or submissions before it may be unreasonable (Vavilov at paras 125-128).

[5] Issues of procedural fairness are not accorded curial deference, and the standard of review is akin to correctness (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54, 56).

II. Analysis

[6] Mr. Mustaqeem alleges that the Officer ignored the evidence and information he submitted and failed to appreciate the benefits of a Canadian education for his career prospects. However, he has failed to demonstrate what, in the record that was actually before the Officer, was missed. Instead, Mr. Mustaqeem asserts facts in his memorandum (unsupported by an affidavit) that both elaborate on, and in some respects contradict, what he placed before the Officer.

[7] Even setting aside the requirement that pleadings of fact be supported by sworn evidence, the Officer cannot be faulted for not addressing information that was not put before them, particularly in the absence of any breach of procedural fairness depriving Mr. Mustaqeem of the right to be heard.

[8] Justice John Norris encountered a similar situation in the case of Husnain v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 856. He explained:

[7] On this application for judicial review, the applicant has attempted to provide more information explaining why he wants to study at USCA but this additional information was not before the officer and cannot be considered here (see Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 17-20; Bernard v Canada (Revenue Agency), 2015 FCA 263 at paras 13-28; Sharma v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 48 at paras 7-9; and Andrews v Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2022 FCA 159 at para 18).

[8] Given the limited information provided by the applicant in support of his study permit application, it was altogether reasonable for the officer to conclude that the purpose of the applicant’s visit is not consistent with a temporary stay and that the applicant had therefore not established that he would leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for his stay.

[9] Justice Norris’ reasoning is fully applicable here. The study plan submitted with Mr. Mustaqeem’s study permit application was vague and lacking in relevant detail and explanation. The Officer reasonably found that he had not met his onus to establish that he would leave Canada at the end of the period of authorized stay, and the deficiencies in the application cannot be cured through submissions on judicial review (D’Almeida v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 308 at paras 3-4, 6-7; Marsh v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 408 at paras 41-43).

[10] Mr. Mustaqeem’s further allegation of a breach of procedural fairness is unsupported by evidence or argument and must fail. I am unable to discern any unfairness in the processing of his study permit application. In any event, the concern about whether the decision reflects the evidence has been addressed above as a question of reasonableness.

[11] As Mr. Mustaqeem has not established any unreasonableness or unfairness in the decision under review, I must dismiss this application.

[12] Neither party proposed a serious question of general importance for certification, and I agree that none arises. There is no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT in IMM-8896-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

2. No question is certified.

"Andrew J. Brouwer"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: