The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit
application where the officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave
Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
The Court upheld the refusal, finding that the officer
reasonably considered the applicant’s ties, previous academic history, purpose
of studies, and family circumstances. The applicant’s alternative explanations
did not establish that the officer’s decision was unreasonable.
Key Principle
A study permit applicant bears the burden of establishing
that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
An officer may consider the applicant’s ties to their
country of residence or origin, previous education, purpose of studies,
financial circumstances, and family situation when assessing whether the
applicant is a genuine student and intends to comply with the temporary nature
of the permit.
An applicant’s possible dual intent to eventually
immigrate to Canada does not remove the requirement to first demonstrate that
they will leave Canada if required.
Background
The applicant was a Ukrainian citizen residing in Spain with
her British common-law partner and their child. She applied for a Canadian
study permit to attend a Physiotherapy/Occupational Therapy Assistant program.
The officer was concerned about her intention to study and
return after completing the program. The officer considered her immigration
status in Spain, family ties, employment, previous academic history, and the
financial circumstances of her partner.
The officer also questioned why she had chosen Canada for
the program and whether the explanation provided sufficiently demonstrated a
genuine academic purpose.
Court Findings
The Federal Court found that the officer’s decision was
reasonable.
The Court accepted that the officer could find that the
applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of ties to Spain, Ukraine, the
United Kingdom, or another country that would motivate her to leave Canada.
The Court also found it reasonable for the officer to
consider the applicant’s previous education and the fact that the proposed
Canadian program did not clearly fit with her academic history. Her explanation
for choosing Canada was also insufficient to address the officer’s concerns.
The Court rejected the argument that the officer was
required to interview the applicant or give her an opportunity to respond to
these concerns. The applicant had the burden of providing sufficient evidence
with her application, and an officer is generally not required to supplement
a deficient application or make the applicant’s case for them.
The Court also confirmed that dual intent does not eliminate
the requirement to establish that the applicant will leave Canada at the end of
the authorized study period.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial
review and upheld the study permit refusal.
Case Citation:
Solopova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 690 CanLII
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
