Docket: IMM-3317-25
Citation: 2026 FC 371
Toronto, Ontario, March 19, 2026
PRESENT: Madam Justice Go
|
BETWEEN: |
|
Simran VERMA |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] Simran Verma [Applicant], a citizen of India, entered Canada in December 2019 with a study permit which expired on March 31, 2024. The Applicant came to Canada with an intention to study at Yorkville University in Ontario, but she located to Alberta based on her family’s advice shortly after her arrival.
[2] On March 26, 2024, the Applicant applied for an extension of her study permit [Extension Application]. In support of her Extension Application, the Applicant submitted an affidavit declaring that her study plans were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in her delayed admission to a new Designated Learning Institution [DLI] in April 2021. The Applicant declared that she was at the DLI from April 2021 to April 2022 and was subsequently admitted to Portage College in Calgary. By the time her study permit expired, she was one semester away from completing her program at Portage College.
[3] On January 7, 2025, an officer from the Case Processing Centre Edmonton [Officer] refused the Applicant’s application to extend her study permit [Decision].
[4] The Applicant seeks a judicial review of the Decision. For the reasons set out below, I dismiss the application.
[5] At the start of the hearing, counsel for the Applicant advised the Court that he is relying solely on one argument that he raised in his written reply, namely, that the Officer failed to consider section 221 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] which allows for the issuance of a study permit if a period of six months has elapsed since an applicant ceased engaging in unauthorized study, or since the applicant failed to comply with a condition that was imposed on them.
[6] The Applicant submits that the Officer has a duty to consider section 221, which is part of the administrative regime for study permit. In addition to the IRPR, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada’s operational manuals require officers to consider section 221 when assessing whether a study permit can be issued.
[7] The Applicant submits that the Court has found, on numerous occasions, that officers have specialized expertise when applying their home statute. While the Officer in this case relied on section 220 of the IRPR, their failure to consider section 221, a “sister regulation,”
rendered the Decision unreasonable.
[8] Applying the reasonable standard of review as per Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov], I reject the Applicant’s argument for the following reasons.
[9] While section 221 of the IRPR gives officers the discretion to issue a study permit in certain situations of non-compliance, the Applicant does not cite any case law to confirm that officers must consider this provision in every study permit extension application where the applicant may have engaged in unauthorized study or have failed to comply with a condition. I am also unconvinced that the Court’s recognition of officers’ expertise in applying the statute signals an expectation that officers are to consider every related section of the IRPR, irrespective of whether the issue was raised by the applicant.
[10] As the Respondent argues and I agree, the Applicant did not raise the application of section 221 before the Officer and her submissions did not acknowledge any substantial non-compliance with the IRPR. On the contrary, the Applicant declared in her affidavit that she was in “substantial compliance”
with the conditions of her stay in Canada, and that any non-compliance “should be reviewed in the context of the unprecedented global pandemic.”
[11] Similarly, in their written submissions to the Officer, counsel for the Applicant asserted that “[a]lthough [the Applicant] did not study at Yorkville University as initially planned, she has been fully compliant with her study permit conditions since 2021…”
[12] The Global Case Management Systems notes, which form part of the Decision, state as follows:
Client entered Canada 2019-12-22 to study a Bachelor degree program at Yorkville University. Verifications list client as a No Show, it appears she never did attend the school. Client’s rep indicates that client’s study plans were disrupted by the covid pandemic, however, the pandemic did not start until after client should have been enrolled in studies and online studies were available. Client submitted a marriage certificate dated 2020-03-19, 3 months after arrival. Client has submitted transcripts from Portage College which show that she started a Business General Certificate program in Fall 2022, has not submitted any proof of studies prior to that. Client submitted an affidavit stating that she studied from April 2021 to April 2022 at a private DLI, but did not mention where nor submit documentation to support that claim.
Client entered Canada with approval to study at a Bachelor degree level. Upon entry, client did not attend school, got married. Almost 3 years later client enrolled in a Business Management Diploma program. I am not satisfied that this is a natural progression of study plans. Client was in non-compliance with study permit conditions as per R220.1(1) for the first 3 years of her document, was not actively pursuing studies. After considering all the circumstances of this case, I am not satisfied that client meets the requirements of the Act and Regulations as a genuine temporary resident who is in compliance with the conditions of their permit. Application refused, letter sent advising.
[13] Based on my review of the record, the Officer’s reasons were responsive to the Applicant’s submissions and evidence: Vavilov at para 127.
[14] The Respondent submits that it was up to the Applicant to make her case for an extension of her study permit, and not up to the Officer to fill in the blanks or improve on the Applicant’s case. I agree.
[15] Given the Applicant’s lack of submissions before the Officer with respect to the application of section 221, I find the Officer’s failure to consider section 221 did not render the Decision unreasonable.
III. Conclusion
[16] The Application for judicial review is dismissed.
[17] There is no question for certification.
Email this Content