Yuzer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 781 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Explain Finding That Similar and Cheaper Programs Were Available Locally

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit application from a Turkish architecture graduate who wished to improve his professional English through a program in Halifax.

The officer concluded that similar programs were readily available in the applicant’s region at much lower cost and relied on that finding in determining that the proposed studies were unreasonable and that the applicant might not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

The Court found no procedural fairness breach, but held that the refusal was unreasonable because the officer failed to explain the factual basis for this key finding.

Key Principle

A visa officer may rely on their knowledge and experience of local conditions when assessing whether proposed studies in Canada are reasonable. Doing so does not necessarily amount to reliance on undisclosed extrinsic evidence.

However, where a finding is central to the refusal, the reasons must provide enough explanation for a reviewing court to determine whether that finding is reasonable.

Deference to an officer’s local expertise does not require the Court to accept an unexplained assertion without any identifiable factual basis.

Background

The applicant was a Turkish citizen who had graduated in architecture and intended to pursue his career in Turkey. He wanted to improve his English because he believed stronger professional language skills would assist him in dealing with international clients.

He was admitted to a program at the Canadian Language Learning College in Halifax. He also had a brother in Nova Scotia who could provide accommodation and family support.

After several previous refusals, the applicant applied again for a one-year language program. The officer refused the application, finding that the proposed studies were not reasonable in light of his background, available educational opportunities, costs, and future plans.

Court Findings

The applicant argued that the officer’s statement that similar programs were available locally was based on undisclosed extrinsic evidence and that he should have been given an opportunity to respond.

The Court disagreed.

Study permit applications attract a relatively low level of procedural fairness. Officers are entitled to draw on their knowledge and expertise concerning local conditions, and applicants should reasonably anticipate that the availability of comparable programs in their home region may be considered.

Accordingly, the officer was not required to issue a PFL before relying on that consideration.

The problem was instead the adequacy and reasonableness of the officer’s explanation.

The applicant had specifically argued that local English programs did not meet his professional needs. The officer responded only that similar programs were “readily available in the region and for much lower costs,” without identifying any examples or explaining why those programs were comparable.

Because this finding was a key factor in the refusal, the Court could not determine whether it was reasonably supported by the evidence or by the officer’s local knowledge.

The Court emphasized that while extensive reasons are not required in visa decisions, there must still be enough reasoning to permit meaningful judicial review.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the study permit refusal, and returned the matter for redetermination by a different decision-maker.

Case Citation:

Yuzer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 781 CanLII