Gega v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1468 : Decision Set Aside After Officer Failed to Properly Assess Study Plan and Applicant’s Ties to Albania

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal to reconsider Daniela Gega’s study permit application for a three-year Business Administration Finance diploma at George Brown College. The officer found that her proposed studies were not logical because she already held a university business degree and was not satisfied that she would leave Canada after her studies. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to meaningfully assess Ms. Gega’s explanation for pursuing specialized finance education, her employment opportunities, business objectives, and substantial ties to Albania.

Key Principle

The Federal Court confirmed that an officer cannot reject a study plan merely because an applicant already possesses education in a broadly similar field. The officer must examine the actual specialization of the applicant’s previous education, the purpose of the proposed program, and evidence connecting further education to realistic career objectives. Findings concerning temporary intent must also meaningfully engage with evidence of employment, business, family, and other home-country ties.

Background

Ms. Gega, an Albanian citizen, worked as an accountant and owned a travel agency in Tirana. She held a bachelor’s degree in business with a specialization in marketing and sought further education in finance to develop her business and advance professionally.

Her employer, Valu Add Management Services, offered her a promotion to financial controller that required additional finance qualifications. She was accepted into George Brown College’s Finance Program and applied for a study permit in October 2019.

The application was refused based on concerns about her study purpose, family ties, employment, assets, and financial circumstances. Ms. Gega requested reconsideration, emphasizing the specialized nature of the Canadian program, her career objectives, and her strong ties to Albania. The officer maintained the refusal, finding her study plan illogical.

Court Findings

• Officer Failed to Distinguish Marketing From Finance

The officer focused on the fact that Ms. Gega already possessed a business degree without meaningfully considering that her previous specialization was marketing while her proposed Canadian studies focused on finance. The Court found that this distinction was directly relevant to whether the study plan represented reasonable professional progression.

• Career and Business Evidence Supported the Study Plan

Ms. Gega provided evidence that further finance education was required for a promotion to financial controller. Her employer specifically confirmed that finance education was necessary for the position. She also explained that financial training would help her better manage and expand her travel agency. The officer failed to adequately engage with these concrete objectives when describing the study plan as illogical.

• Ties to Albania Were Not Seriously Assessed

The officer also failed to meaningfully assess Ms. Gega’s establishment in Albania. Her evidence included her husband, employment, business ownership, and professional advancement opportunities. The Court found that the officer made no serious effort to explain why these factors were insufficient to motivate her return after completing her studies.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review because the reconsideration decision lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility. However, the Court rejected the procedural fairness argument, finding that the officer’s concerns arose from the statutory requirements and did not require another opportunity to respond. No question was certified and no costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Gega v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1468 (CanLII)