Docket: IMM-24085-24
Citation: 2026 FC 422
Quebec, Quebec, March 31, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Duchesne
|
BETWEEN: |
|
JASPREET SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision [Decision] made on December 11, 2024, by an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] officer [Officer] that refused his application for the restoration of his student status and his application for a post-graduation work permit [PGWP].
[2] The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Decision is unreasonable. The Applicant’s application is therefore dismissed for the reasons that follow.
I. Background
[3] The Applicant is a citizen of India.
[4] On June 13, 2024, the Applicant applied for the restoration of his student status and for a PGWP. This was the Applicant’s third application for a PGWP. His first two applications were refused on March 28, 2024, and May 6, 2024, respectively, on the basis that he had not maintained full-time student status in Canada during each academic session of his program of study. His third application was refused for the same reason.
[5] The Applicant had originally been enrolled in his program of study at the University of Manitoba as a full-time student. He began to suffer from mental health challenges due to family matters toward the end of 2018. The Applicant spoke with an academic advisor at the University around that time. The academic advisor informed the Applicant about the possibility for him to switch to part-time status because his faculty did not require students in Major degree programs, as he was, to study full-time. The Applicant’s physician in India, whom he had consulted, had recommended at the time that he “rest until he feels comfort”
. The Applicant discussed switching to part-time status with members of his faculty at the University of Manitoba. Following his physician’s recommendation and being satisfied that the University would allow him to continue his studies as a part-time student for one term, the Applicant lightened his course load and became a part-time student for a limited period of time between January and April 2019. The Applicant states that he did not engage in any discussion regarding the potential immigration status implications of his studying on a part-time basis for the Winter 2019 term.
[6] The Applicant was also a part-time student for the Fall 2023 term, as he only needed to complete two required courses to finish his degree and therefore enrolled in only those two courses. He subsequently graduated with a Bachelor of Science (Computer Science) degree, issued on February 1, 2024.
II. The Decision
[7] The Officer refused the Applicant’s restoration and PGWP applications. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant met the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, [IRPA] or its regulations for the restoration of his student status or for the issue of the permit sought. The Decision letter outlines the Officer’s reasoning as follows:
Foreign students in Canada are eligible for a work permit for post-graduation employment only if they have engaged in full-time studies for at least eight months at a:
• a public post-secondary institution, such as a college, trade or technical school, university or CEGEP (in Quebec);
• a private post-secondary institution that operates under the same rules and regulations as public institutions;
• a private secondary or post-secondary institution (in Quebec) offering qualifying programs of 900 hours or longer leading to a diploma of vocational studies (DVS) or an attestation of vocational specialization (AVS); or
• a Canadian private institution authorized by provincial statute to confer degrees (i.e., bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, doctorate), but only if the student is enrolled in one of the programs of study leading to a degree, as authorized by the province, and not in just any program of study offered by the private institution.
As you do not meet the requirements, it has been determined that you are not eligible for a work permit in this category.
You are a person in Canada without temporary residence status who is not eligible for restoration under section 182 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Pursuant to section 183(5)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, your temporary resident status has expired. You are a person without status in Canada and as such, you are required to leave Canada forthwith. Failure to do so could result in enforcement action being taken against you.
[8] The Officer’s GCMS notes complete the Decision and read in part as follows:
The client is a foreign national from India who initially entered Canada on April 11, 2017 as a student. Once he finished his studies, he applied for a post-graduation work permit (PGWP) on two separate occasions. Both applications were refused as he was enrolled in part-time studies for the Winter 2019 term.
[…]
I have reviewed the client's immigration history, his completion of studies letter and his transcript. The client studied part-time in the Winter 2019 semester and has had two PGWP applications refused for this very reason. In order to be eligible for a PGWP, foreign nationals are required to maintain full-time student status. The client has provided a letter from the designated learning institution (DLI) that states, "The Faculty of Science does not require students in Major degree programs to study full time". While the DLI does not require students to maintain full-time student status, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) does in-fact expect students to remain enrolled full-time until program completion.
The client is required to adhere to IRCC's policies and legislation in order to qualify for a PGWP. Since the client did not maintain full-time student status, his application is refused per R205(c) of the IRPR. I would also like to note that the client has had two PGWP applications refused and this is now his third. He also has a TRP application in progress. The client was required to leave Canada once he lost status but has not done so. I am not satisfied that the client will depart Canada after his authorized period of stay in accordance with R200(b) of the IRPR. The circumstances surrounding his PGWP eligibility have not changed but he has been unwilling to return to his home country.
Application refused.
III. Issue and Standard of Review
[9] The sole issue before the Court is whether the Decision is reasonable.
[10] The parties agree, and I with them, that the applicable standard of review is the reasonableness standard discussed in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
[11] On a reasonableness review, the reviewing court considers the reasons provided by the administrative decision-maker and asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness (i.e., justification, transparency and intelligibility) in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear upon the decision-maker (Vavilov at para 99). The Court’s role is not to reweigh, reassess or second-guess the evidence (Doyle v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 237 at para 3).
[12] The challenging party bears the burden of establishing that the decision under review is unreasonable due to “sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency”
(Vavilov at para 100). This is not a “line-by-line treasure hunt for error”
(Vavilov at para 102). Rather, where “there is [a] line of analysis within the given reasons that could reasonably lead the tribunal from the evidence before it to the conclusion at which it arrived”
the reviewing court will not intervene (Vavilov at para 102). The Court will interfere with the decision under review where it is satisfied that the shortcomings or flaws relied on by the party challenging the decision are more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits. They must be sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable (Vavilov at para 100).
IV. The Applicable Legal Framework
A. PGWP Program
[13] As has been discussed in Kaur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 513 [Kaur] and in Odeseye v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 93 [Odeseye], the PGWP Program is not expressly provided for in the IRPA or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations]. Instead, the Program flows from the authority provided to the Minister under section 205 of the IRPA to create programs allowing foreign nationals to receive work permits where the Minister deems it necessary for reasons of public policy relating to the competitiveness of Canada’s academic institutions or economy (Kaur at para 8, citing Osahor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 666 at paras 13-14 and 17 [Osahor]).
[14] The Minister has set out the criteria for the issuance of a PGWP in the PGWP Program Delivery Instructions [PDIs]. This Court has held repeatedly that those criteria are to be strictly applied. The result is that an officer has no discretion to disregard the mandatory requirements set out in the PGWP-PDIs (Osahor at paras 14 -16, citing Nookala v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1019 at paras 11–12; Abubacker v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1112 at para 16 [Abubacker]; Rehman v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1021 at para 19).
B. Restoration Process
[15] The possibility of restoring a study permit and the visitor student status that goes along with it, as well as the general scope of an officer’s discretion to do so, is set out in section 182 of the Regulations.
[16] As was explained in Sui v Canada, 2006 FC 1314 at paragraphs 32 to 35, a visitor student must not have lost their temporary resident status for longer than 90 days as a result of one of the events listed under section 182 of the Regulations in order to apply for restoration of their visitor student status.
[17] Pursuant to subsection 182(1) of the Regulations, an officer shall restore the applicant’s status if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the applicant meets the initial requirements for their stay, has not failed to comply with any other conditions imposed, and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Regulations. This provision should not be interpreted to mean that an officer may conclude that an applicant does not meet the initial requirements for their stay in Canada simply because the applicant did not leave Canada at the end of the authorized period. This is particularly so where the applicant applies for restoration within 90 days of losing temporary resident status. Such an interpretation would render section 182 of the Regulations meaningless.
[18] As is contemplated by section 182 of the Regulations, restoration is not possible if the applicant does not meet the initial requirements for their stay. This requirement is explained in more direct and user-friendly language in the PGWP-PDIs under the heading “In Canada – study permit becomes invalid or expired”
as follows:
Applicants whose study permit becomes invalid or expires before they apply for a PGWP may not be eligible to apply from in Canada because they would no longer meet the requirements of section R199, even if they have maintained their temporary resident status as a visitor. In these cases, the applicant must submit their PGWP application under section R197 for processing outside Canada.
However, if the applicant is eligible for restoration under section R182, they can restore their status as a temporary resident with authorization to study by applying for a study permit. They must meet all the regular study permit requirements, including that they hold a valid letter of acceptance from the DLI where they intend to study. They may also concurrently submit a GWP application.
If the study permit is approved and issued, then the requirement of section R199 for the submission of the work permit application in Canada would be met. Therefore, the concurrent work permit application can be processed.
[Emphasis added]
[19] As provided by section 182 of the Regulations, the officer receiving a restoration application must restore the applicant’s status if the applicant meets the requirements of section 182. As remarked upon by Madam Justice Aylen in Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 173, at paragraph 11, subsection 182(1) does not permit restoration to a different temporary resident status (see also Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1311, at para 16). This means that a visitor student visa may be restored as a visitor student visa, but it cannot be “restored”
to a visitor or temporary work permit.
V. Arguments and Analysis
A. The PGWP Application
[20] The Applicant first argues that the Decision that refused his PGWP application is unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider his explanation that an exception for leave from studies can be applied to his case.
[21] The Respondent argues that the Officer’s decision is reasonable and that there was no error on the Officer’s part. The Respondent argues that the Officer considered and rejected the Applicant’s assertions that his part-time studies in the Winter 2019 term constituted leave from studies authorized by the University of Manitoba. This can be found, the Respondent argues, in the GCMS notes where the Officer noted that they considered the letter received from the University of Manitoba and what it actually communicates. Given the Officer’s finding regarding the University of Manitoba letter, the Officer did not need to explicitly address the Applicant’s assertion that his part-time studies constituted “authorized leave”.
[22] The PGWP-PDIs set out that to obtain a PGWP, the applicant must meet the applicable criteria on the date IRCC receives the application. One of the applicable criteria is that the applicant must:
-
oleave from studies
-
ofinal academic session
-
ospecial measures between January 1, 2020, and August 31, 2020
-
ospecial measures between March 1, 2020, and August 31, 2024
[23] The PGWP-PDIs also set out that officers can review the transcripts to confirm that an applicant was enrolled in full-time studies in their program, and that the term “full-time”
is defined by the applicant’s DLI, in this case the University of Manitoba.
[24] The PGWP-PDIs also provide for specific situations where an applicant may not be attending full-time classes but may nevertheless remain eligible for a PGWP. These situations, as they pertain to part-time studies, are exhaustively described in the PGWP-PDIs as follows:
Part-time status for final academic session
Applicants must maintain full-time student status during each academic session of the program or programs of study they complete, and this status is required for their PGWP application. However, if the applicant meets all the eligibility requirements, with the exception of full-time status during their final academic session (that is, they have part-time status only in their final academic session), they are still considered eligible for the PGWP.
A student’s final academic session is to be interpreted as any semester in which a student could complete their program of study. In cases where a student has part-time status in their final semester, but fails a course and needs to retake it to graduate, both semesters may be considered as a final academic session.
Students should be able to demonstrate that throughout their studies they have made reasonable progress toward the completion of their courses to remain compliant with their study permit conditions (for more information, see: Study permits: Assessing study permit conditions).
[25] The evidence in the record as considered by the Officer was that the Applicant and his DLI confirmed that he had not been a full-time student during each academic session of program, as he was a part-time student in the Winter 2019 term.
[26] The Applicant plainly did not meet the eligibility criteria for a PGWP.
[27] Considering that the Applicant’s own evidence that he was a part-time student during the Winter 2019 term and that his part-time status had been confirmed by his DLI, there was no requirement for the Officer to explicitly consider and refute the Applicant’s argument that he was “on leave”
from his studies during the Winter 2019 term because he was not “on leave”
; he had continued to study, but on a part-time basis. The Applicant’s argument had no basis in fact and had been contradicted by his own evidence.
[28] The Officer’s Decision is not unreasonable for not explicitly engaging with an argument that had no factual foundation and was without merit as a result.
[29] The Applicant has not persuaded me that the Officer’s reasoning or decision is unreasonable when they found that the Applicant had not maintained his status as a full-time student and that this was sufficient to justify the rejection of the PGWP application pursuant to paragraph 205(c) of the Regulations.
[30] The Applicant’s second argument relies on Sugagata v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1436 [Sugagata], and the holding therein that the Officer should have reviewed the Applicant’s PGWP Application, exercised their best judgment and considered the Applicant’s reasons for attending their DLI on a part-time basis when assessing compliance with their study permit conditions.
[31] The issue in Sugagata concerned a highly particular factual matrix that is significantly different than the one at issue here. In Sugagata, the applicant had failed to explain her status during a term of her course of study. The Officer in this case had no reason to engage in an assessment of whether the Applicant remained compliant with his study permit conditions, or had continued to pursue his studies, because the Applicant mentioned his status during the relevant terms of his course of study and had provided confirmation of the same from his DLI.
[32] The conditions of the Applicant’s study permit are not at issue in this case. The issue here concerns PGWP eligibility as set out in the PRGP-PDIs only. Sugagata therefore does not apply. The Officer was not required to consider whether the Applicant complied with his study permit conditions in these circumstances.
B. The Restoration Application
[33] The Decision sets out that the Applicant is a person in Canada without temporary resident status who is not eligible for restoration under Section 182 of the Regulations. The GCMS notes do not explicitly set out the basis for the Officer’s decision in this regard, although the basis is clear from the record and the PGWP-PDIs.
[34] The PGWP-PDIs echo the content of section 182 of the Regulations in direct and user-friendly language. They set out that an applicant whose study permit becomes invalid or expires before they apply for a PGWP can restore their status as a temporary resident student with authorization to study by applying for a study permit.
[35] The record reflects that the Applicant did not apply for a study permit. Rather, he filed an IMM 5710 application form to remain in Canada as a worker “with the same employer”
. The Officer’s GCMS notes reflect that the Applicant’s application was considered as a restoration request directed at work with an employer whose name and address remained to be determined, as did the intended location and type of employment in Canada.
[36] The written submissions filed by the Applicant’s representative along with the IMM 5710 to the IRCC refer to and rely in part on the PWGP-PDI section “In Canada – study permit becomes invalid or expired”
reproduced above as support for his argument that he could apply for a PGWP and that that application would be processed concurrently with his restoration application. The portion of the PWGP-PDI relied upon by the Applicant is that portion that reads, “If the study permit is approved and issued, then the requirement of section R199 for the submission of the work permit application in Canada would be met. Therefore, the concurrent work permit application can be processed”.
[37] The difficulty with the Applicant’s submission to IRCC is that he failed to apply for the restoration of a study permit at all. His failure to do so meant that there was no study permit to be potentially restored and, consequentially, no toehold from which the application for a work permit could potentially be considered in light of the portion of the PWGP-PDIs he referred to. The Applicant’s filing of an IMM 5710 work permit application could not make him eligible for the restoration of his study permit pursuant to section 182 of the Regulations (Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 173, at para 11; Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1311, at para 16).
[38] The Officer’s omission to explicitly explain the basis for his refusal of the restoration application is a minor misstep in the Decision. It does not render the decision unreasonable because the rationale is evident from the record itself (Vavilov, at paras 100 and 137).
[39] The Applicant argues that the Officer used the fact that the Applicant did not leave Canada pending the consideration of his restoration application to form the conclusion that the Applicant did not meet the requirements of paragraph 200(b) of the Regulations. While the Officer observed in the GCMS notes that they were not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada after his authorized stay, that observation is not tied to the rejection of the Applicant’s restoration application.
[40] The Applicant has not demonstrated that the refusal of his restoration application was unreasonable.
C. The Temporary Resident Permit
[41] The Applicant had also requested a temporary resident permit pursuant to section 24 of the IRPA in his written submissions to IRCC in support of his application for the restoration of his student status and PGWP. The Officer did not issue the requested temporary residence permit.
[42] The Applicant submits that the refusal of his request for a temporary residence permit was unreasonable because the Officer did not at least address or consider the issuance of a temporary resident permit. He argues that this failure is sufficient to establish that the Decision is unreasonable.
[43] The Respondent argues that the Officer considered the Applicant’s request for a temporary residence permit by noting in the GCMS notes that, “He [the Applicant] has a TRP application in progress”
. By doing so, argues the Respondent, the Officer met the minimum requirements identified by the jurisprudence and the Decision is not unreasonable as a result.
[44] The Applicant relies on Catindig v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 92, at paragraphs 36 to 38 [Catindig], for the proposition that an officer is required to address and assess the Applicant’s TRP request in their reasons, even if briefly. In my view, the Officer’s statement in their GCMS notes that “He [the Applicant] has a TRP application in progress”
reflects that the Officer considered the Applicant’s temporary resident permit request and assessed that they did not need to address it further because the Applicant already had an application in progress. That the Officer addressed the Applicant’s temporary resident permit, albeit briefly, is sufficient to show that the Applicant’s argument does not establish that the Decision is unreasonable. I agree with the Respondent.
[45] I note that the Applicant’s Notice of Application reflects that he sought judicial review of the Officer’s decision to “refuse the applicant’s restoration of student status and post-graduate work permit application”
only. The Applicant did not seek judicial review of any refusal to issue a temporary resident permit pursuant to section 24 of the IRPA.
VI. Conclusion
[46] The Court finds that the Decision is reasonable and that the Applicant has not established otherwise.
[47] This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.
[48] Neither party suggested that this proceeding involves a serious question of general importance that should be certified. I agree with the parties that there is no such question to be certified in this case.
Email this Content