D’Almeida v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 308 : Study Permit Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Adequately Explain Major Career Change and Future Return Plans

In D’Almeida v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 308, the Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit application by a 36-year-old applicant who wished to pursue a two-year journalism diploma at Seneca College.

The visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant’s primary purpose in Canada was to study or that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. The Court upheld the refusal, finding that the officer reasonably assessed the applicant’s proposed career change, immigration status in the United Arab Emirates, family ties, and limited evidence supporting her stated interest in journalism.

Key Principle

A study permit applicant bears the burden of providing sufficient evidence to explain the reasonableness of the proposed studies, particularly where the program represents a significant departure from the applicant’s previous education and employment.

An officer may assess whether the proposed studies make sense in light of the applicant’s background, career history, future plans, and ability to return to their country of residence.

Further, a finding that the evidence is insufficient is not the same as an adverse credibility finding and does not generally require a procedural fairness letter or interview.

Background

The applicant was a citizen of South Africa and Zimbabwe and had been living in the UAE, where she worked for Emirates Airline as a cabin crew supervisor.

She applied to study journalism at Seneca College. Her previous career had primarily involved administrative work and almost eight years with Emirates. She explained that extensive travel had inspired her interest in storytelling and human rights issues and that journalism was her calling.

However, the officer noted that the applicant had not produced articles, blogs, vlogs, publications, or other objective evidence demonstrating an established interest in journalism. The officer also considered that studying in Canada would require her to leave her employment and could result in the loss of her UAE residency status.

Court Findings

The Federal Court upheld the officer’s assessment of the proposed career change.

The applicant argued that her acceptance by Seneca College demonstrated that the journalism program was appropriate. The Court rejected this argument, noting that a college determines whether an applicant qualifies academically for admission, while the visa officer has the separate responsibility of determining whether the applicant satisfies Canadian immigration requirements.

The Court found it reasonable for the officer to expect a more persuasive explanation for a substantial career change at age 35. The applicant’s study permit materials contained little objective evidence demonstrating a sustained interest in journalism beyond her own statements. The more detailed explanation later provided in her judicial review affidavit could not cure the original application because that evidence had not been before the officer.

The officer was also entitled to consider that the applicant could lose her UAE residency and employment by leaving to study in Canada. That circumstance weakened her ability to demonstrate a clear destination to which she would return after completing her studies.

Her extensive history of compliant international travel did not overcome this concern because her previous travel occurred while she had secure employment and status in the UAE.

Finally, the Court found no procedural fairness breach. The officer’s concerns reflected insufficient evidence, not disbelief, document authenticity concerns, or adverse credibility findings. The officer was therefore not required to invite the applicant to provide further information or attend an interview.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the study permit refusal was reasonable and that the process was procedurally fair.

Case Citation:

D’Almeida v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 308 CanLII