JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant, Mr. Taji seeks judicial review of a decision to refuse his study permit. His study permit was refused because the visa officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. For the reasons that follow, I grant the application for judicial review.

I. Background

[2] The Applicant is an Iranian national. He holds a Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering, specializing in Systems Optimization, and has been employed as a quality control and assurance expert at an automotive parts manufacturing company in Iran since September 2022. He applied for a study permit after being accepted into the Master of Science program in Quality Systems Engineering at Concordia University in Montreal.

[3] The Officer determined that the application failed on the sole basis that the Applicant had not demonstrated how the proposed program of study would enhance his employment prospects, given that he had already completed a similar graduate degree and in light of the high cost of the Canadian program. The Officer concluded that the Applicant had not shown that he would depart Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form part of the reasons, 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. The [sic] It is not evident why applicant would study this program at such great expense given the hight [sic] cost of international study In Canada when applicant already possess a similar higher level of edeucation [sic]. Client has a master Engineering - industrial Engineering and is applying for a master in Engineering- quality system engineering that as per website several of the course units on offer appear to similar to what applicant completed in his Msc Eng program. Purpose document reviewed. The applicant has failed to show why this program is relevant and how it will improve employment prospects in his country. 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.

II. Analysis

[4] The only issue is whether the decision to refuse the study permit is reasonable. The parties agree that the standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 23, 25 [Vavilov].

[5] The general framework applicable to judicial reviews denying study permits was outlined by Justice Pentney in Nesarzadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 568 at paragraphs 5–9, and is summarized below:

• a)A reasonable decision must explain the result, in view of the law and the key facts.

• b)Vavilov seeks to reinforce a “culture of justification” requiring the decision-maker to provide a logical explanation for the result and to be responsive to the parties’ submissions, but it also requires the context for decision-making to be taken into account.

• c)Visa Officers face a deluge of applications, and their reasons do not need to be lengthy or detailed. However, their reasons do need to set out the key elements of the Officer’s line of analysis and be responsive to the core of the applicant’s submissions on the most relevant points.

• d)The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the Officer that they meet the requirements of the law that applies to consideration of student visas, including that they will leave at the end of their authorized stay.

• e)Visa Officers must consider the “push” and “pull” factors that could lead an applicant to overstay their visa and stay in Canada, or that would encourage them to return to their home country.

(followed in Farkhondehfal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 692 at para 16 [per Little J]; Raoufi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 550 at para 4 [per Norris J]; Mahdavi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 629 at para 14 [per Whyte Nowak J]; Safarian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 775 at para 2 [per Grammond J] Shaeri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1596 at para 5 [per McHaffie J]; Luk v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 623 at para 6 [per Aylen J]; Ekong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1355 at para 18 [per Duchesne J]; Alizadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1757 at para 17 [per Kane J]).

[6] Applying these principles, I consider the Officer’s decision to be unreasonable as it is silent on material evidence that was before the Officer relevant to “push” and “pull” analysis. Specifically, it fails to reference evidence that contradicts the Officer’s conclusion, including the following:

• a)The Applicant’s family and other ties to Iran, and lack of family in Canada;

• b)The Applicant’s travel history; and

• c)Correspondence from his current employer in Iran confirming the Applicant would have a position “for a new salary and allowances after completion of his study upon his return from his studies in Canada”. The purpose of study summary included with the application said that upon completion of his studies he would receive a promotion after completing his studies. This evidence appears to contradict Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant failed to show how the study program will improve his employment prospects.

[7] The only reason the application was refused was because the officer concluded the Applicant would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. An analysis of the relevant push-pull factors takes on a greater importance in this context.

[8] I would note that had the reasons demonstrated that the Officer considered the above factors and nevertheless reached the same conclusion, the decision may have survived judicial review. Here, however, there is no engagement with the evidence pointing to the Applicant’s attachment to Iran. While exhaustive reasons are not required for study permit decisions, there is still a need to address evidence that contradicts key aspects of a central conclusion, even if briefly (Mahdavi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 629 at para 19; Vavilov at para 128). That was not done here.

[9] This is sufficient to dispose of the judicial review and I need not express an opinion on the other arguments raised by the Applicant.

JUDGMENT in IMM-9087-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted.

2. Mr. Taji’s study permit application shall be remitted to a different decision-maker for re-determination.

3. There is no question for certification and no costs are awarded.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: