The
Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an in-Canada study permit application.
The visa officer found that the applicant was not eligible to apply for a study
permit from within Canada because his Letter of Acceptance (LOA) did not
expressly state that he had completed a prerequisite course. The Court allowed
the judicial review, holding that the officer failed to consider evidence
demonstrating that the applicant had completed a language pathway program
required for admission to his designated learning institution (DLI).
Key
Principle
The
Court confirmed that a language pathway program can constitute a
prerequisite course or program under paragraph 215(1)(f)(iii) of the IRPR where
successful completion is required for admission to a designated learning
institution. Officers must assess all relevant evidence and cannot refuse an
in-Canada study permit application solely because the Letter of Acceptance does
not expressly identify the prerequisite.
Background
Xiang
Li, a citizen of China, entered Canada as a visitor and later completed an
English language pathway program at Heartland International English School.
After successfully finishing the program, he received admission to a CAD
Technician certificate program at the Manitoba Institute of Trades and
Technology (MITT). MITT recognized completion of the Heartland program as
satisfying its English language admission requirements for international
students.
Mr.
Li applied for a study permit from within Canada under paragraph 215(1)(f)(iii)
of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), which permits
certain temporary residents to apply from within Canada if they have completed
a course or program that is a prerequisite to enrolling at a designated
learning institution. The officer refused the application because the LOA
indicated “N/A” under conditions of acceptance and did not explicitly state
that a prerequisite course had been completed.
Court
Findings
Justice
Fuhrer found the decision unreasonable. The Court held that the officer focused
exclusively on the wording of the LOA while ignoring other evidence
demonstrating that completion of the Heartland language pathway program was a
prerequisite for admission to MITT. The record included evidence from MITT’s
website and admissions correspondence confirming that successful completion of
the Heartland program satisfied MITT’s English language admission requirements
for international students.
The
Court emphasized that paragraph 215(1)(f)(iii) does not require that a
prerequisite be expressly identified in the LOA. Nor does the provision limit
prerequisites to academic courses. The wording of the regulation refers broadly
to a “course or program of study” that is required for enrolment at a DLI.
Accordingly, a language pathway program may qualify as a prerequisite where the
institution requires it for admission.
The
Court also criticized the officer’s reliance on internal IRCC policy guidance
that appeared inconsistent with the text and purpose of the regulation.
Administrative guidelines cannot override the wording of the IRPR. Because the
officer failed to engage with the evidence and adopted an unduly narrow
interpretation of the regulation, the decision was unreasonable.
The
Federal Court allowed the judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and
returned the matter to a different officer for redetermination.
Case
Citation: Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2020 FC 279 (CanLII)
