Docket: IMM-10282-23
Citation: 2025 FC 372
Toronto, Ontario, February 26, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
BETWEEN: |
AMIR REZA SADEGHZADEH |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(delivered orally from the Bench on February 26, 2025)
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a study permit application refusal. The Officer’s decision was based on: (1) the Applicant having no significant family ties outside of Canada and being single, mobile, and having no dependents; (2) the existence of other programs closer to the Applicant’s place of residence at a lower cost and the Applicant’s lack of sufficient explanation as to how the program in Canada would benefit him; and (3) the Applicant’s job offer letter not mentioning why an international degree is required.
[2] All three grounds are not justified in fact or law and the decision is therefore unreasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov] at para 99).
[3] First, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant does not have significant family ties outside of Canada is unjustified considering the evidence. The Applicant’s parents reside in Iran and he has a sister in the US, as well as one in Quebec. The Applicant explained that he has close ties to his parents in Iran. The Officer’s determination makes no reference to this evidence or explanation.
[4] Second, the Officer’s finding regarding similar programs “closer to the applicant’s place of residence at a lower cost”
lacks transparency and justification. There is no evidence in the record of such programs, and it is unclear which programs the Officer is referring to (Khan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 276 at para 4).
[5] Third, the finding that the Applicant’s job offer letter did not mention why an international degree is required is unreasonable. Justice William Pentney recently found that “[w]hile the Officer correctly notes that the letter does not state that an international diploma is necessary for the job, that is not a necessary element in all job offers”
(Jafarkhani v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2024 FC 1633 at para 7). As in Jafarkhani, the Applicant’s job offer letter in this matter clearly offers a promotion “after graduation from the Computer Programming program”
. This letter corroborated his statement that the program would help with job prospects in Iran and served as a tie to Iran (Jafarkhani at para 7).
[6] Each of the Officer’s core findings are unjustified in fact and law and the decision is therefore unreasonable (Vavilov at para 99). The application for judicial review is granted.
[7] Finally, the parties requested that the style of cause be amended to reflect the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as the proper Respondent, and that will be ordered.
Email this Content