JR
Dismissed
The
Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a study permit extension refusal.
The Court found that the applicant failed to comply with his study permit
conditions because he did not attend his designated learning institution for an
entire academic year, creating a study gap well beyond the 150-day period
permitted under IRCC policy.
Key
Principle
A
gap in studies exceeding 150 days can support a finding that a student failed
to comply with study permit conditions.
Students applying to extend a study permit must provide all available evidence
explaining any lengthy study interruption, including evidence of an authorized
leave, deferral, medical circumstances, or other relevant factors.
Background
Olasubomi
Oladotun Badiru, a citizen of Nigeria, came to Canada on a visitor visa and
obtained a study permit in August 2019 to pursue undergraduate studies at the
University of Alberta.
Although
his study permit was valid from August 2019 to March 2023, Mr. Badiru did not
attend the University of Alberta during the September 2019 to April 2020
academic year.
In
September 2020, he began a computer science program at MacEwan University in
Edmonton. When he later applied to extend his study permit, IRCC requested
transcripts covering his time in Canada.
The
transcripts showed that he had not been enrolled during the 2019–2020 academic
year. The officer concluded that this gap raised concerns that Mr. Badiru had
not actively pursued his studies or remained enrolled at a designated learning
institution.
The
study permit extension was refused on the basis of non-compliance with the
original study permit conditions.
Court
Findings
The
Court confirmed that study permit holders must remain enrolled at a designated learning institution and actively pursue their
program of study under subsection 220.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations.
IRCC
policy allows students to take an authorized leave from studies for up to
150 days. If a student does not resume studies within that period, they
must change their immigration status or leave Canada. A gap exceeding 150 days
may result in non-compliance with study permit conditions.
Mr.
Badiru’s gap was not a short or temporary interruption. He did not attend the
University of Alberta for the full 2019–2020 academic year, which was
substantially longer than 150 days.
The
Court found that the applicant knew, or should have known, that he had to
demonstrate compliance with his study permit conditions when applying for an
extension. He had the opportunity to provide evidence and explanations
regarding the lengthy gap but did not submit them to the officer before the
decision was made.
On
judicial review, Mr. Badiru attempted to provide new evidence explaining why he
did not attend the University of Alberta and why he did not leave Canada during
the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The
Court refused to consider this new evidence. It found that the evidence could
have been submitted with the study permit extension application and was not
admissible merely because the applicant later wished to challenge the decision.
The
Court also rejected the procedural fairness argument. The officer was not
required to issue a further fairness letter or specifically ask the applicant
to explain a gap that was apparent from the transcripts. The burden remained on
the applicant to establish compliance with the conditions of his study permit.
The
Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the
refusal of the study permit extension.
Case Citation:
Badiru v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2024 FC 1157 (CanLII)
