Introduction
The
Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit extension and restoration
of status application submitted by a Kenyan citizen who had been studying in
Canada since 2015. The Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
officer refused the application after finding that the applicant had failed to
comply with the conditions of his study permit due to a gap in his studies
during the 2020 academic year. The Court granted judicial review, finding that
the officer failed to meaningfully address the applicant’s central argument
that IRCC had previously reviewed the same circumstances, accepted his
explanation, and approved an earlier study permit extension.
Key
Principle
A
decision-maker must meaningfully engage with important evidence and submissions
that directly address the basis for refusal. While administrative decisions are
not required to provide extensive reasons, they must demonstrate justification,
transparency, and intelligibility. Where an officer reaches a conclusion that
appears inconsistent with a previous decision made by the same authority on the
same evidence, the officer must explain why the prior assessment is no longer
accepted.
Background
The
applicant, a citizen of Kenya, had been studying in Canada since 2015. He
completed high school in Canada in 2018 and began studying at the University of
Manitoba in the fall of 2018. Throughout his studies, he held valid study
permits.
In
2023, the applicant applied to extend his study permit. During that
application, he explained that he had not studied during the Winter 2020 and
Fall 2020 semesters due to difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic and
personal circumstances. He provided supporting documentation explaining the
interruption. IRCC accepted the explanation and approved his study permit
extension application, issuing a new study permit valid until October 31, 2024.
Before
the expiry of that permit, the applicant applied for another extension because
he required additional time to complete his credits. The application was
refused because he failed to include a letter explaining the 2020 study gap. As
a result, his status expired on November 1, 2024. The applicant then applied
for restoration of status within the required 90-day period and provided the
same explanation and supporting documents previously accepted by IRCC.
The
officer refused the restoration application, finding that the applicant had
failed to comply with subsection 220.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations because he had not studied for more than 150 days during
the 2020 academic year.
Court
Findings
· Failure to Address Prior IRCC Decision
The
Court found that the officer failed to engage with the applicant’s key
submission that IRCC had already considered and accepted the explanation for
his 2020 study interruption. The record before the officer included the
previous application file number, the approved study permit extension, and the
documents previously submitted to explain the gap.
· Reasons Lacked Justification and Transparency
The
Court emphasized that the issue was not the length of the officer’s reasons,
but the absence of reasoning on a central issue. The officer simply concluded
that the applicant was non-compliant with study permit conditions without
explaining why the previous approval by IRCC and the supporting evidence were
no longer sufficient.
· Decision Was Not Reasonable Under Vavilov
Applying
the reasonableness standard from Canada v Vavilov, the Court held that
the decision lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility. The
officer was required to explain the change in position regarding the
applicant’s study gap, particularly where IRCC had previously reviewed the same
circumstances and granted an extension.
Outcome
The
Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the
refusal decision, and returned the matter to a different officer for
reconsideration. No question was certified for appeal.
Case
Citation: Chamah v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2026 FC 449 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
