Logo of A&M Canadian Immigration law Corporation

Al Aridi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 381 : Study Permit and Family TRV Refusals Set Aside Where Officer Made Veiled Credibility Findings Without Giving Applicants an Opportunity to Respond

In this case, the Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit application together with the related Temporary Resident Visa applications of the applicant’s husband and three children.

The principal applicant wished to pursue a three-year Special Care Counselling program in Montréal. The officer was not satisfied that she was a bona fide student or that the family would leave Canada at the end of the authorized period. The Court found that these concerns amounted to veiled credibility findings and that procedural fairness required the applicants to be given an opportunity to respond.

Key Principle

Visa and study permit applicants are generally owed a relatively low level of procedural fairness, and officers are not required to alert applicants merely because the evidence submitted is insufficient.

However, the situation changes where an officer’s concern is really about the credibility, accuracy, authenticity, or genuineness of the applicant’s evidence or stated intentions.

Where an officer does not simply find the evidence insufficient, but instead effectively concludes that the applicant is not telling the truth about the purpose of travel or intention to leave Canada, the applicant must normally be given an opportunity to address that concern.

Background

The applicants were Lebanese citizens living in Qatar. The principal applicant had been accepted into a three-year Special Care Counselling program at Collège LaSalle and held the required Québec acceptance certificate.

Her husband was employed as a manager with an engineering firm in Qatar. The family had substantial savings, owned four properties in Lebanon, maintained extended family ties there, and held U.S. visitor visas.

The husband and children intended to accompany the principal applicant initially and visit her periodically during her studies.

Despite acknowledging approximately $448,000 CAD in family savings and the husband’s income of approximately $8,900 CAD per month, the officer concluded that the principal applicant’s establishment outside Canada was weak, that the proposed studies would not significantly improve her qualifications or employment prospects, and that she was not a bona fide student. The other family members were likewise found not to be bona fide visitors.

 

Court Findings

The Federal Court found that the refusals went beyond concerns about evidentiary sufficiency.

The principal applicant had provided evidence of admission to the college, a Québec acceptance certificate, a study plan, previous education and employment information, financial resources, and family establishment outside Canada.

The Court noted that transcripts and official language test results, which the officer criticized as missing, were not themselves regulatory requirements. It also found the officer’s conclusions that the proposed program would not improve the applicant’s qualifications or employment prospects to be speculative and unsupported by the evidence.

Most importantly, the Court found that the officer had effectively decided that the family’s stated intentions were not genuine. Repeated statements that the principal applicant was not a “bona fide” student and that the family members were not “bona fide” visitors demonstrated that the officer did not believe their stated intentions.

This was therefore not merely a case of insufficient documentation. It involved credibility concerns about whether the family genuinely intended temporary residence in Canada.

The officer was required to give the applicants an opportunity to respond to those concerns before refusing their applications. Failing to do so breached procedural fairness.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed all five applications for judicial review, set aside the study permit and TRV refusals, and returned the applications for redetermination by a different officer.

 

Case Citation:

Al Aridi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 381 CanLII

Visit our Social Media:

CATEGORIES

Case Law Library (945)Case Law Update - January 2026 (13)Case Law Update - February 2026 (9)Case Law Update - March 2026 (12)Case Law Update - April 2026 (9)Case Law Update - May 2018 (4)Case Law Update - May 2019 (3)Case Law Update - May 2020 (4)Case Law Update - May 2021 (6)Case Law Update - May 2022 (10)Case Law Update - May 2023 (10)Case Law Update - May 2024 (13)Case Law Update - May 2026 (10)Case Law Update – May 2025 (18)Case Law Update - June 2026 (24)Case Law Update - Apr. 2018 (7)Case Law Update - Apr. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Apr. 2020 (8)Case Law Update - Apr. 2022 (11)Case Law Update - Apr. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Apr. 2024 (14)Case Law Update - Aug. 2018 (5)Case Law Update - Aug. 2019 (4)Case Law Update - Aug. 2020 (5)Case Law Update - Aug. 2021 (8)Case Law Update - Aug. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Aug. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Aug. 2024 (7)Case Law Update - Aug. 2026 (8)Case Law Update - Dec. 2018 (7)Case Law Update - Dec. 2020 (5)Case Law Update - Dec. 2021 (9)Case Law Update - Dec. 2023 (6)Case Law Update - Dec. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Dec. 2025 (11)Case Law Update - Feb. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Feb. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Feb. 2020 (7)Case Law Update - Feb. 2021 (3)Case Law Update - Feb. 2022 (11)Case Law Update - Feb. 2023 (14)Case Law Update - Feb. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jan. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Jan. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Jan. 2020 (11)Case Law Update - Jan. 2021 (3)Case Law Update - Jan. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Jan. 2023 (9)Case Law Update - Jan. 2024 (13)Case Law Update - Jul. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Jul. 2019 (7)Case Law Update - Jul. 2021 (9)Case Law Update - Jul. 2022 (7)Case Law Update - Jul. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Jul. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jul. 2025 (16)Case Law Update - Jul. 2026 (13)Case Law Update - Jun. 2018 (6)Case Law Update - Jun. 2019 (6)Case Law Update - Jun. 2020 (4)Case Law Update - Jun. 2021 (14)Case Law Update - Jun. 2022 (9)Case Law Update - Jun. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Jun. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Jun. 2025 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2018 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2019 (8)Case Law Update - Mar. 2020 (9)Case Law Update - Mar. 2021 (2)Case Law Update - Mar. 2022 (10)Case Law Update - Mar. 2023 (11)Case Law Update - Mar. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Nov. 2018 (5)Case Law Update - Nov. 2020 (2)Case Law Update - Nov. 2021 (11)Case Law Update - Nov. 2023 (12)Case Law Update - Nov. 2024 (14)Case Law Update - Nov. 2025 (11)Case Law Update - Oct. 2018 (8)Case Law Update - Oct. 2020 (1)Case Law Update - Oct. 2021 (10)Case Law Update - Oct. 2023 (10)Case Law Update - Oct. 2024 (16)Case Law Update - Oct. 2025 (13)Case Law Update - Sep. 2018 (5)Case Law Update - Sep. 2019 (7)Case Law Update - Sep. 2020 (3)Case Law Update - Sep. 2021 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2022 (10)Case Law Update - Sep. 2023 (6)Case Law Update - Sep. 2024 (15)Case Law Update - Sep. 2025 (17)Case Law Update - Sep. 2026 (13)Case Law Update – Apr. 2021 (4)Case Law Update – Apr. 2025 (9)Case Law Update – Aug. 2025 (8)Case Law Update – Dec. 2022 (10)Case Law Update – Feb. 2025 (8)Case Law Update – Jan. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Mar. 2025 (17)Case Law Update – Nov. 2022 (11)Case Law Update – Oct. 2022 (6)

About The Author

Picture of Dr. Muhammad Abrar

Dr. Muhammad Abrar

Barrister & Solicitor

From temporary status to PR, get expert legal help to choose the right immigration pathway.

Contact our office for details. Our immigration legal service in Winnipeg will assess your eligibility per CIC criteria and submit your application.