Introduction
The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s
refusal of Ahmad Shuhaib Abdul Samad’s study permit application. The applicant,
a citizen of Afghanistan residing in Kuwait, challenged the refusal after the
officer concluded that he would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized
stay due to concerns about conditions in Afghanistan. The Court granted
judicial review, finding that the officer failed to explain why the applicant
would not return to Kuwait, where he had lived for many years and was
established.
Key Principle
The Federal Court reaffirmed that
study permit decisions must demonstrate justification, transparency, and
intelligibility. While officers may consider country conditions and an
applicant’s ties, they must engage with evidence that directly contradicts their
conclusions. Generalized concerns cannot replace an individualized assessment
of the applicant’s circumstances.
Background
The applicant, an Afghan citizen,
had been residing in Kuwait since at least 2014. He applied for a study permit
to study in Canada.
The officer refused the
application, stating that due to widely documented human rights concerns and
country conditions in Afghanistan, the officer was not satisfied that the
applicant’s purpose was temporary or that he would return to Afghanistan or his
current country of residence after completing his studies.
The applicant argued that the
officer focused only on Afghanistan and failed to consider that Kuwait was his
actual country of residence. He provided evidence showing his long-term
residence in Kuwait, family connections there, and his intention to return.
Court Findings
• Officer Failed to Assess
Return to Kuwait
The Court accepted that the
officer’s concerns regarding Afghanistan were explained through reference to
country conditions. However, the Court found no reasoning explaining why the
applicant would not return to Kuwait.
Justice Gleeson noted that the
evidence showed the applicant had lived in Kuwait since 2014, that his
immediate family resided there, and that he was established in that country.
• General Country Concerns
Were Insufficient
The Court held that an assessment
of temporary intent must consider the applicant’s actual circumstances.
Concerns about Afghanistan could not automatically determine whether the
applicant would return to Kuwait.
The officer was required to
explain why the applicant’s evidence of establishment in Kuwait was
insufficient or why contrary evidence was preferred.
• Presumption of Evidence
Review Did Not Apply
The Respondent argued that
officers are presumed to have considered all evidence. The Court accepted this
principle but held that the presumption cannot save a decision that lacks
justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted leave
and allowed the judicial review application. The refusal decision was set
aside, and the matter was returned to a different decision-maker for
redetermination. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Abdul Samad v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2025 FC 1408 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
