Docket: IMM-8988-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2076
Toronto, Ontario, December 19, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed
BETWEEN: |
SAHAR NAHVI |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered orally from the bench on December 19, 2024, and subject to stylistic, editorial, and syntax edits, as well as reference to jurisprudence and legal citations)
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer (the “Officer”
) refusing her application for a study permit pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”
).
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of Iran who sought to enter Canada to pursue a diploma in Business Marketing at Humber College. Her father, mother, and brothers reside in Iran. The Applicant holds a bachelor degree in Urban Construction Engineering and a master degree in Urban Planning. Since 2016, she has worked in digital marketing.
[3] In June 2023, the Applicant’s study permit application was refused. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would depart at the end of her stay because she did not have significant family ties outside Canada and the purpose of her visit was not consistent with a temporary visit.
[4] The sole issue in this application is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable. In my view, it is.
[5] Although the Applicant rightly notes that the Officer erred in their assessment of her family ties, I do not find this error warrants overturning the decision as a whole (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 97, 100 (“Vavilov”
); Ocran v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 175 at para 48; Rezaali v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 269 at paras 24-25). The Global Case Management System (“GCMS”
) notes show that the Officer’s decision was largely based on the purpose of her visit, rather than her family ties.
[6] As noted by this Court in Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613, one factor “on its own”
may be “sufficient to refuse [an a]pplicant’s study permit,”
so long as the Officer’s conclusion on that factor “is reasonable on the basis of the evidence presented”
(at para 31). In this case, I find that the Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s study plan is reasonable.
[7] The Officer clearly acknowledged the Applicant’s submissions on this issue. The Officer considered the Applicant’s “previous studies,”
“previous employment,”
“educational history,”
and “career progression.”
The Officer also assessed the Applicant’s “motivation to pursue studies in Canada,”
noting that the Applicant’s “reasons for which the international educational program would be of benefit”
were insufficient. The Officer provided justification for this finding, explaining that a letter of continued support from the Applicant’s employer “does not articulate in detail the necessity of the international education.”
The Officer’s reasons are not “simply too generic and too general”
(Ajdadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 754 at para 15). I find the refusal decision to be responsive to the Applicant’s submissions and justified in light of the evidentiary record (Vavilov at paras 125, 127).
[8] I do not find that the Officer unreasonably “opine[d] on the value of the intended education for [the A]pplicant”
(Desai v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1610 at para 20 (“Desai”
)). In this case, there were demonstrated “inconsistencies between the study plan and the proposed diploma’s utility given the [A]pplicant’s existing academic…background”
(Askari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1318 at para 30). Unlike in Desai, the Officer here did not evaluate whether “pursuing the selected program of study is reasonable”
for the Applicant (at para 17). Instead, the Officer assessed whether “the [A]pplicant would leave Canada at the end of their stay.”
This is the correct legal question pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the IRPR.
[9] The Respondent rightly notes that “[t]he onus was on the Applicant to convince the Officer of the merits of [her] study plan”
(Mehrjoo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 886 at para 12). “[E]specially [if] the proposed course of study appear[s] redundant or not a logical progression,”
“general assertions about how the proposed program would benefit an applicant”
are not enough to discharge this burden (Amiri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1532 at para 30). Viewing the reasons holistically, I find the Officer reasonably concluded that the Applicant did not meet this requirement.
[10] I therefore dismiss this application for judicial review. No question is certified.
Email this Content