Bista v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 574 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored a Fully Disbursed Education Loan and Misunderstood Career Progression

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Yasna Bista’s study permit application. The applicant, a 19-year-old citizen of Nepal, intended to complete a two-year nursing program at Centennial College in Toronto. The officer found that she had not demonstrated sufficient financial resources, had not adequately explained the program’s career benefits, and had not established that she would leave Canada after her studies. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to address substantial financial evidence and unreasonably questioned the career progression of a young student beginning her professional education.

Key Principle

Visa officers are not required to discuss every document in a study permit application, but they must address evidence that directly contradicts an important refusal ground. A fully disbursed educational loan and other financial records cannot be ignored when assessing whether sufficient funds are readily available. In addition, an officer must assess career progression in context. A young applicant beginning professional studies is generally entitled to choose a career path and pursue education that advances that objective, particularly where the proposed program is not repetitive of prior qualifications or employment.

Background

The applicant sought admission to a two-year nursing program at Centennial College. Her studies were financially supported by family members.

The officer concluded that the application lacked sufficient credible and verifiable evidence concerning the sponsors’ employment, business income, and other sources of funds. The officer was also not satisfied that the applicant had enough readily available money to support herself without working in Canada.

The applicant had submitted tax clearance certificates, property valuation reports, statements from several financial institutions, and an approved educational bank loan equivalent to more than CAD $62,000. The loan had already been fully disbursed for her benefit.

The officer additionally found that the applicant had not sufficiently explained how the nursing program would benefit her or lead to career progression. The applicant had explained that admission to nursing education in Nepal was highly competitive and that obtaining an international nursing qualification would distinguish her professionally.

Court Findings

• Significant Financial Evidence Was Overlooked

The Court found that the officer did not adequately explain why the fully disbursed education loan, combined with the remaining financial evidence, failed to establish sufficient available funds.

• Reasons Did Not Address Contradictory Evidence

Although concise reasons are permitted, an officer must engage with evidence that directly undermines a central finding. The failure to address the loan made the financial conclusion unreasonable.

• Career Progression Finding Was Unreasonable

The applicant was only 19 and was beginning her chosen professional path. Unlike an experienced applicant pursuing repetitive studies, she was entitled to select nursing as her future career and obtain the qualifications necessary to achieve that goal.

• Applicant Explained the Program’s Benefit

Her explanation that international nursing education would improve her competitiveness in Nepal provided a rational connection between the program and her intended career.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted leave and judicial review, quashed the study permit refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Bista v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 574 (CanLII)