The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Mohammad Saad’s
study permit application to continue a Computer Engineering degree he had
already begun at the University of Saskatchewan. The officer relied on an
allegedly non-temporary study purpose, previous non-compliance with immigration
conditions, and the absence of academic transcripts. The Court granted judicial
review because the reasons did not explain the temporary-intent concern or
meaningfully assess the applicant’s immigration history and enrollment evidence.
Key Principle
An officer assessing future compliance must consider the
applicant’s immigration history as a whole, including efforts to restore status
and prompt departure after refusal. A missing document may justify refusal
where independently required, but it cannot rationally support a
temporary-intent finding without an explained connection. Templated reasons
must also demonstrate genuine engagement with the applicant’s specific
circumstances and evidence.
Background
The applicant began his degree remotely during the pandemic
and later studied in Canada under a valid study permit. After the permit
expired, he applied for restoration but mistakenly failed to submit requested
documents through the online portal.
When restoration was refused, he left Canada within ten
days. He then applied from abroad to continue his existing degree, submitting a
detailed enrollment confirmation but no formal academic transcripts.
Court Findings
• Temporary-Purpose Finding Was Unexplained
The officer stated that the proposed visit was inconsistent
with a temporary stay but did not identify which details supported that
conclusion. The applicant was seeking to resume a degree already commenced
online and in person, making a specific explanation particularly necessary.
• Reasons Appeared Insufficiently Adapted to the
Applicant
The refusal relied largely on standard language without
showing meaningful engagement with the applicant’s particular educational and
immigration history. Although templated wording is not automatically
unreasonable, it must still reveal an actual assessment of the individual
record.
• Prior Immigration History Was Not Properly Assessed
The applicant did not extend his permit before expiry, but
he promptly applied for restoration and believed he was using a lawful process.
The officer failed to consider this context when using the past incident as
evidence that he would not comply with future immigration conditions.
• Prompt Departure Supported Future Compliance
After learning that restoration had been refused and that he
lacked status, the applicant left Canada within ten days. This conduct
demonstrated that he understood the temporary nature of his authorization and
was willing to comply with a direction to depart.
• Missing Transcript Was Not Rationally Linked to
Temporary Intent
The officer mentioned the absence of transcripts immediately
after finding that the proposed visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay.
The reasons did not explain how failing to provide a transcript suggested that
the applicant intended to remain permanently.
• Enrollment Confirmation Was Overlooked
The applicant submitted a detailed University of
Saskatchewan confirmation showing his studies to date and eligibility to
continue. Even if formal transcripts were required, the officer needed to
address this document before relying on the missing transcript as part of the
temporary-intent analysis.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the
study permit refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for
redetermination. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Saad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1302 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
