Docket: IMM-16096-24
Citation: 2025 FC 1998
Vancouver, British Columbia, December 18, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Conroy
|
BETWEEN: |
|
FARHAD FARSHID |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Mr. Farshid, seeks judicial review of a decision by an immigration officer [the Officer] refusing his application for a study permit. The Officer was not satisfied that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit to Canada is consistent with a temporary stay and that he would depart Canada following his studies.
[2] Mr. Farshid is a citizen of Iran. He holds a Master’s degree in Urban Design and has been employed at a construction company in Iran since 2017. He applied for a study permit to pursue a two-year post-baccalaureate diploma in Technical Management and Services at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, British Columbia.
[3] The Applicant’s study permit was refused by letter dated August 12, 2024. The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes state:
I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. PA does not demonstrate to my satisfaction reasons for which the international educational program would be of benefit. 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. For the reasons above, I have refused this application. [emphasis added]
[4] The sole issue is whether the decision is reasonable. The applicable standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 23, 25 [Vavilov].
[5] The Applicant acknowledges that visa officers are entitled to a high degree of deference, and their reasons need not be lengthy. However, he submits that the reasons here simply provide a conclusion without any explanation, which is unreasonable.
[6] I agree. The decision is unreasonable, not due to the brevity of the reasons, but because the Officer’s notes provide a conclusory statement that the Applicant had not demonstrated the benefit of the proposed program. The Officer offered no rationale and pointed to no evidence in the record to support that conclusion. In the absence of such explanation, the Court is left to speculate as to why the Officer was not satisfied: Afuah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 596 at para 17.
[7] While visa officers are presumed to have reviewed the record in its entirety, the reasons here do not meaningfully engage with the evidence describing the Applicant’s anticipated promotion with his current employer in Iran upon completion of the Canadian program. Although the Applicant bears the burden of demonstrating the merits of his study plan (Charara v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1176 at para 36), it was nevertheless incumbent upon the Officer to explain why the documented prospect of advancement with his current employer after completion of the Canadian program, together with his stated intention to pursue future self-employment, was insufficient. The Applicant was entitled to an explanation for the Officer’s conclusion: Mouivand v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 573 at paras 16 and 17.
[8] The Respondent points to weaknesses in the Applicant’s study plan and the employer’s letter. The Respondent argues the Applicant failed to describe, in a concrete way, how the diploma program would contribute to the skills required by his current company. While this may be so, this was not an explanation provided by the Officer. Had the Officer engaged with the evidence in a manner akin to the capable submissions of the Respondent, the decision may have survived judicial review.
[9] I am not persuaded that Farnia v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 511 [Farnia] assists the Respondent. The reasons provided by the Officer in Farnia, in contrast to the present case, provided some explanation for the conclusion, including:
• a vague study plan;
• “sweeping statements on how the education will improve the applicant’s situation in Iran”; and
• the source of the applicant’s funds.
[Farnia at para 3]
[10] The reasons under review here do not reveal an intelligible or rational chain of analysis permitting meaningful review by this Court. Accordingly, the decision will be set aside and remitted to a different officer to consider.
Email this Content