The
Federal Court reviewed an exclusion order issued against an international
student for failing to comply with the conditions of her study permit. The
Court upheld the decision, finding that the officer reasonably concluded the
applicant was not actively pursuing her studies as required by subsection
220.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR).
Key
Principle
The
case confirms that actively pursuing studies requires more than mere
enrolment. Repeated course failures, frequent program changes, poor attendance,
and lengthy absences may demonstrate non-compliance with study permit
conditions, even where the student remains registered at educational
institutions.
Background
Gursimran
Kaur, a citizen of India, entered Canada in 2016 on a study permit to pursue a
business program at Simon Fraser University (SFU). She struggled academically,
failing courses at SFU and later at Kwantlen Polytechnic University after
transferring schools. In 2018, she enrolled at Canadian College and achieved
some academic success, passing most of her courses. However, she subsequently
missed numerous classes and withdrew from a semester following a car accident.
When
Kaur re-entered Canada from the United States in March 2019, CBSA officers
reviewed her academic history and study permit compliance. Following several
interviews and an opportunity to provide supporting documentation, an exclusion
order was issued on the basis that she had not actively pursued her studies.
Court
Findings
The
Court found the officer’s decision reasonable. The evidence demonstrated a
pattern of poor academic performance, repeated course failures, multiple
transfers between institutions, changes in programs of study, and lengthy
periods of non-attendance. The officer reasonably concluded that these
circumstances did not support an expectation that the applicant was making
reasonable progress toward obtaining a Canadian educational credential.
The
Court rejected the applicant’s argument that she remained a bona fide student
despite her academic difficulties. It distinguished earlier case law concerning
dependent students and emphasized that study permit holders have a specific
obligation to remain enrolled and actively pursue their studies. The Court
noted that Kaur had failed more courses than she had passed, had taken extended
breaks from her studies, and had switched from the business program specified
in her permit to a more general program.
The
Court also rejected her argument that medical issues arising from a car
accident justified her absences. While the officer considered her explanation,
she failed to provide supporting evidence such as accident reports, medical
documentation, or other corroborative materials during the administrative
process.
Relying
on prior decisions including Kone and El Kamel, the Court held that significant
absences from studies alone may support a finding that a student has not
actively pursued their education. The officer’s conclusion that Kaur failed to
comply with subsection 220.1(1) of the IRPR therefore fell within the range of
reasonable outcomes.
The
Federal Court dismissed the judicial review and upheld the exclusion order.
Case Citation: Gursimran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1260 (CanLII)
