In Caianda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019
FC 218, the Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit
application for a 43-year-old applicant who wished to study English for one
year and then pursue a two-year Electronics Engineering Technology program at
New Brunswick Community College.
The visa officer refused the application on the basis that
the proposed studies did not represent a logical progression from the
applicant’s previous education and work experience, and that it was
unreasonable for him to pursue the program in Canada at significant expense.
The Federal Court found both conclusions unreasonable and
set the refusal aside.
Key Principle
A study permit officer must assess the applicant’s actual
explanation for pursuing further education, including personal,
professional, and life circumstances.
A proposed program does not become unreasonable simply
because it is undertaken later in life or does not follow a perfectly linear
academic path.
Further, the higher cost of studying in Canada cannot, by
itself, support a finding that an applicant is not a bona fide student,
particularly where the applicant has demonstrated the financial ability to pay
for the proposed studies.
Background
The applicant planned to first complete an English-language
program at St. John College and then enroll in Electronics Engineering
Technology at New Brunswick Community College.
The officer concluded that the proposed studies did not
represent a logical progression from the applicant’s prior credentials and
employment. The officer also questioned why the applicant would choose to study
in Canada at substantial cost when less expensive English-language programs
were available elsewhere.
Based on those concerns, the officer was not satisfied that
the applicant was a bona fide student.
The applicant had, however, provided an explanation for his
educational plan. Approximately ten to fifteen years earlier, while living in
Portugal, he had begun engineering studies but was unable to continue because
of the combined demands of work, school, and raising a young family.
By the time of the study permit application, his children
were older, his financial circumstances had improved, and he wished to return
to a long-standing educational goal.
Court Findings
The Federal Court found the officer’s reasoning unreasonable
on two grounds.
First, the applicant had specifically explained why he
wished to pursue engineering studies at this stage of his life. The Court found
no reasonable basis for characterizing the proposed program as an illogical
progression when the applicant was simply returning to an educational objective
that he had been unable to complete earlier because of family and employment
responsibilities.
Second, the Court rejected the officer’s reliance on the cost
of Canadian education as a basis for questioning whether the applicant was
a genuine student.
The Court recognized that studying in Canada may be
comparatively expensive, but emphasized that individuals may have valid reasons
for placing a high value on Canadian higher education. An officer should not
become suspicious merely because an applicant chooses a more expensive
educational option.
Importantly, the evidence demonstrated that the applicant
could afford the proposed course of study.
Outcome
The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial
review, set aside the study permit refusal, and returned the matter for
reconsideration by a different visa officer.
Because the decision was already unreasonable on these
grounds, the Court found it unnecessary to address the applicant’s separate
procedural fairness argument.
Case
Citation:
Caianda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 218 CanLII
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
