Docket: IMM-11039-23
Citation: 2025 FC 430
Toronto, Ontario, March 7, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
BETWEEN: |
AMRITPREET KAUR |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Amritpreet Kaur [Applicant], seeks judicial review of the decision of an Immigration Officer [Officer], dated August 4, 2023, refusing the Applicant’s Study Permit Application [Decision] on the basis that the Applicant had not satisfied her onus of demonstrating that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. The Applicant has a bachelor’s and master’s degree in computer science along with relevant work experience, which led the Officer to question her desire to pursue a post-degree diploma degree in web design given that she already possesses a higher-level of qualification. The Applicant submits that the Decision is unreasonable for questioning her choice of studies and failing to engage with her study plan, which she says explains her choice of studies.
[2] I am dismissing this application for judicial review as I find that the Officer reasonably engaged with the Applicant’s study plan and ultimately, the Officer’s Decision reflects the Applicant’s failure to meet her onus of explaining the benefits of pursuing the program in light of her previous educational and work experience.
II. Legislative Framework
[3] Pursuant to subsection 11(1) and paragraph 20(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 and paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations], an officer issuing a study permit to a foreign national must be satisfied that a person applying to study in Canada will not overstay the period authorized for their stay.
III. Facts
[4] The Applicant is a citizen of India who applied in July 2023 for a study permit in order to attend a post-graduate certificate web design program at the University of Winnipeg. The Applicant has not only completed a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in computer engineering, but she has worked as a computer teacher at a senior secondary school in India.
[5] The Applicant submitted supporting documents, which included, inter alia, academic transcripts and a document titled, “Statement of Purpose”
which provided her academic and financial background and offered an explanation as to why she was interested in pursuing a career in web development.
[6] The Officer refused the Applicant’s application pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Regulations, on the grounds that the applicant did not satisfy the Officer that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay.
[7] The Officer’s Global Case Management System notes that accompany the Decision show that the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant demonstrated a logical progression of studies stating that “it is not evident why the applicant would study this program at such great expense considering the applicant already possesses a higher level of qualification.”
The Officer concluded that “based on the information available at the time of assessment, I am not satisfied that the [Applicant’s] proposed educational path makes sense.”
IV. Preliminary Issue
[8] The Respondent objects to exhibits attached to the Applicant’s supporting affidavit that were not before the Officer consisting of: (i) course and university details (Exhibit C); and (ii) a submission made in connection with the Applicant’s previous study plan for a study permit which was rejected in July 2023 (Exhibit D).
[9] The Applicant submits in response that this evidence is properly before the Court as it was evidence that was available to the Officer in making the Decision. This is not consistent with the general and common-sense rule that this Court is limited on judicial review to the evidentiary record upon which the decision maker actually made its decision (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at para 19 [Access Copyright]). There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule (Access Copyright at para 20).
[10] Having considered the exceptions in Access Copyright, I find that: Exhibit C does not fall under any of the exceptions as the information is not merely general background information, but information which goes to the merits of the Decision; and Exhibit D qualifies as background information that might assist the Court in understanding the Officer’s reasons which refer to the Applicant’s previous application which the Officer located through an integrated search.
V. Issues and Standard of Review
[11] The only issue raised by the Applicant is whether the Decision is reasonable.
[12] The standard of review in matters related to the merits of a study permit decision is reasonableness (Hajiyeva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 71 at para 4). A reasonable decision “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility,”
and the burden is on the challenging party to show that the decision is unreasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 99-100).
VI. Analysis
[13] The Applicant submits that the Officer failed to give proper consideration to the Applicant’s evidence in coming to the conclusion that the content and level of the proposed web design diploma fall below the Applicant’s advanced degrees and therefore is not a logical progression in the Applicant’s studies. The Applicant relies on decisions such as Monteza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 530 at paragraphs 11, 13-14 [Monteza] and Sahi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1735 at paragraph 22 [Sahi] to suggest that an applicant’s completion of previous degrees at a higher level is not a sufficient basis alone to find that the pursued program of study is not reasonable.
[14] I do not consider Sahi and Monteza to be binding authorities as the Applicant suggests. Not only are cases involving study permits highly fact-sensitive, but the Court’s finding that the underlying decision was unreasonable in each of these cases also included a finding that the visa officer failed to adequately consider the applicant’s evidence. While the Applicant argues in this case that the Officer’s reference to the Applicant’s Statement of Purpose amounts to an insufficient boiler-plate conclusion, I find the Officer’s reasons are merely reflective of an equally inadequate explanation of the course content in the Statement of Purpose, which offers no explanation as to how the proposed diploma in web design enhances the Applicant’s education and work experience in computer science. It was the Applicant’s onus to sufficiently explain the benefits of pursuing the program (Rajabi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 371 at para 12) and I do not consider the Applicant’s Statement of Purpose to provide information that does this. The Course description provided as new evidence on judicial review simply comes too late.
[15] Accordingly, I find that it was reasonably open to the Officer to find that the Applicant’s Statement of Purpose did not demonstrate the logical progression that the Applicant suggests it does.
VII. Conclusion
[16] The Applicant has not met her onus of showing the Decision is unreasonable. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Email this Content