Chahal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1910 : Federal Court Upholds PGWP Refusal Where Applicant Failed to Maintain Full-Time Student Status

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) application submitted by an international student who had completed his undergraduate studies in Canada. The application was refused because the applicant had not maintained full-time student status during each academic session of his program. Although the officer mistakenly identified the academic term in the refusal reasons, the Court held that the error was insignificant because the evidence clearly established that the applicant was not eligible for a PGWP.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that PGWP eligibility requirements must be strictly applied. Applicants must demonstrate that they maintained full-time student status during each academic session of their program, subject only to specific exceptions. While officers must provide reasonable decisions, reviewing courts will not interfere with minor factual mistakes where the overall reasoning remains logical and the outcome is supported by the evidence.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of India, entered Canada on a study permit and enrolled in a Bachelor of Arts (Honours) Criminology program at York University in 2019.

During the Summer 2020 academic session, the applicant initially enrolled in two courses totaling nine credits, which met York University’s requirement for full-time status. However, he later withdrew from one course, leaving him with only three credits for that session. As a result, he was considered a part-time student.

In June 2024, the applicant applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit. His transcript, submitted with the application, showed the reduced course load. IRCC refused the application after determining that he had not maintained full-time student status throughout his program.

Court Findings

• Applicant Did Not Meet PGWP Requirements

The Court held that the applicant did not satisfy the mandatory PGWP eligibility criteria. The evidence established that he was not enrolled as a full-time student during the Summer 2020 session. Since full-time status is a required condition for PGWP eligibility, the refusal was supported by the record.

• Officer’s Mistake Did Not Make the Decision Unreasonable

The applicant argued that the officer incorrectly referred to the relevant academic session as “Fall 2019 Winter 2019” rather than the Summer 2020 session. The Court accepted that the officer made a mistake but found that it did not affect the decision.

Justice Brown emphasized that judicial review is not a search for minor errors. The question is whether the decision, viewed as a whole, contains a rational chain of reasoning. In this case, the evidence clearly showed that the applicant had lost full-time status because of his course withdrawal.

• No Requirement to Issue a Procedural Fairness Letter

The applicant argued that the officer should have provided an opportunity to explain his circumstances or obtain clarification from his university. The Court rejected this argument, holding that visa officers are not required to provide applicants with a “running score” of weaknesses in their applications or give a second opportunity to establish eligibility.

The applicant bore the responsibility of submitting a complete application demonstrating that he met the PGWP requirements.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court concluded that although the officer misstated the academic term, the refusal was reasonable because the applicant did not maintain full-time student status as required for PGWP eligibility. No question was certified, and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Chahal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1910 (CanLII)