Adom v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 26 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Treated Lack of Travel History as a Negative Factor and Misread the Applicant’s Study Plan

In Adom v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 26, the Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit application submitted by a 34-year-old citizen of Ghana who wished to pursue Human Resources Management studies at Algonquin College in Ottawa.

The visa officer refused the application after finding that the applicant had weak establishment in Ghana, insufficient financial resources, limited travel history, and an educational plan that would not significantly enhance her employment prospects. The Federal Court found that the officer’s assessment was unreasonable and set the refusal aside.

Key Principle

A lack of previous international travel is a neutral factor and should not be treated as evidence that a study permit applicant will fail to leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay.

Further, a visa officer must assess the actual study plan and career objectives presented by the applicant. An officer should not substitute their own opinion about whether a proposed course of study is beneficial or appropriate without properly engaging with the applicant’s stated educational and professional objectives.

Background

The applicant sought to study Human Resources Management at Algonquin College. Her application included a detailed study plan explaining that, after completing her studies, she intended to return to Ghana and establish her own human resources consultancy firm.

She also submitted evidence of land ownership in Ghana, her own savings, her brother’s financial information, and evidence that her brother intended to fund her studies.

The visa officer nevertheless concluded that her establishment in Ghana was weak. Among other concerns, the officer relied negatively on her lack of previous travel and questioned whether studying human resources in Canada would significantly enhance her work for her brother’s company.

Court Findings

The Federal Court identified two important errors.

First, relying on Dhanoa v. Canada, the Court confirmed that lack of travel history is a neutral consideration. The officer therefore erred by treating the applicant’s absence of previous international travel as a negative factor when assessing whether she would leave Canada after her studies.

Second, the Court found that the officer had effectively assumed the role of a career counsellor by deciding that the proposed Canadian education would not significantly enhance the applicant’s employment with her brother.

That reasoning demonstrated a more fundamental problem: the officer had failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant’s study plan. Her stated objective was not to return to work for her brother. She intended to establish her own human resources consultancy business in Ghana after completing the program.

The officer’s reasoning was therefore based on a misunderstanding of a central component of the application. The Court held that these extraneous considerations and the failure to properly assess the study plan rendered the decision unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the study permit refusal, and returned the application for redetermination by a different decision-maker. Because the decision was unreasonable, the Court found it unnecessary to address the applicant’s separate procedural fairness argument.

Case Citation:

Adom v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 26 CanLII