Dehghanisanij v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 965 : Study Permit Denial Overturned After Failure to Consider Caregiving Responsibilities

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Leila Dehghanisanij’s study permit application for a Master of Education program at the University of Windsor. The officer was not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her studies, relying on allegedly weak family ties, her status as single and mobile, and uncertainty about which university she intended to attend. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to meaningfully address evidence showing strong family obligations and did not properly consider her explanation for selecting the University of Windsor.

Key Principle

An officer cannot reasonably conclude that an applicant lacks significant family ties while failing to assess material evidence showing caregiving responsibilities toward a close family member. Describing an applicant as single, mobile, and without dependants does not, by itself, explain why the applicant is likely to overstay. The officer must connect those personal characteristics to the temporary-intent assessment and address evidence that directly contradicts the refusal grounds.

Background

The applicant sought a study permit to pursue a Master of Education at the University of Windsor.

Her application included information about family members, a medical certificate concerning her mother’s condition, and submissions explaining that her responsibility to care for her mother would motivate her return after completing her studies.

The officer found that the applicant was single, mobile, not well established, and had no dependants. The officer also stated that she lacked significant family ties outside Canada and that her visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay.

The officer further expressed confusion because the record contained admission letters from both the University of Windsor and Concordia University.

Court Findings

• Material Family Evidence Was Overlooked

The officer did not meaningfully address the medical evidence showing that the applicant’s mother required her care.

• Family-Ties Finding Contradicted the Record

The conclusion that the applicant lacked significant family ties was inconsistent with the evidence submitted.

• Personal Status Was Not Properly Connected to Overstay Risk

The officer did not explain how being single, mobile, or without dependants established an incentive to remain in Canada.

• Temporary-Purpose Finding Was Unexplained

The reasons did not show why the proposed studies were inconsistent with a temporary stay.

• Program Choice Was Clearly Explained

The applicant had stated that she chose the University of Windsor because of its professors and location, despite also receiving admission from another institution.

• Reasons Lacked Responsive Justification

The officer failed to engage with evidence that was central and contradictory to the refusal grounds.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the study permit application for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Dehghanisanij v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 965 (CanLII)