Adeniran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 229 : PGWP Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Final Academic Session Exception

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Adedamola Michael Adeniran’s PGWP application. The officer concluded that he was ineligible because he had studied part-time during his final Fall/Winter academic session at York University. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to consider the PGWP policy exception permitting part-time studies during an applicant’s final academic session.

Key Principle

A PGWP officer must apply all potentially relevant program delivery instructions, including express exceptions to the full-time study requirement. Where an applicant studies part-time only during the final academic session, the officer must determine whether that exception applies rather than refusing the application solely because part-time studies occurred. The Minister cannot later supplement the officer’s reasons with an interpretation or rationale that the officer never gave.

Background

The applicant graduated from York University in April 2022 after taking his final two courses during the Fall/Winter 2021 academic session. His transcript showed full-time studies in the earlier Fall/Winter academic sessions and part-time status only in the final one.

The officer refused the PGWP because the transcript showed part-time studies, stating simply that applicants must remain enrolled full-time to qualify.

Court Findings

• Final Academic Session Exception Was Directly Relevant

The PGWP instructions expressly provided that a student may remain eligible despite part-time status during the final academic session. Because the applicant’s transcript showed part-time studies only at the end of his program, the exception plainly required consideration.

• Officer Appeared to Overlook the Exception Entirely

Nothing in the GCMS notes indicated that the officer considered whether the exception applied. The reasons simply relied on the general full-time requirement and therefore failed to engage with a central eligibility provision.

• Minister Could Not Add a New Interpretation

The Minister argued that “academic session” should mean a four-month semester rather than York University’s Fall/Winter academic year. The Court held that this interpretation did not appear in the officer’s reasons and could not be introduced on judicial review to justify the refusal.

• Institutional Definition Was Relevant

York University expressly described the September-to-April period as a Fall/Winter academic session for undergraduate studies. The Court noted that the PGWP instructions used broad language capable of accommodating different academic structures across institutions.

• Direct Issuance of PGWP Was Not Ordered

Although the applicant argued that only one reasonable outcome was available, the Court declined to order IRCC to issue the permit. It remained possible that other eligibility issues required assessment, so redetermination by another officer was more appropriate.

• Redetermination Was Ordered Within Four Weeks

The Court recognized the prejudice caused by the applicant’s inability to work while the matter remained unresolved. It therefore required IRCC to reconsider the application within four weeks, although no costs were awarded because the high threshold for special reasons was not met.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the PGWP refusal, and ordered redetermination by another officer within four weeks. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Adeniran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 229 (CanLII)