Hagh Shenas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1086 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Rent Deposit, Financial Resources, and Return Ties Were Ignored

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Fatematossadat Hagh Shenas’s study permit application and the related work permit and visitor visa applications submitted by her husband and children. The officer questioned large deposits, found the family’s finances insufficient, and doubted their temporary intent. The Court granted judicial review because the officer ignored explanations and evidence directly addressing these concerns.

Key Principle

A visa officer must assess financial transactions in light of the applicant’s explanation and supporting documents. Large deposits cannot reasonably be treated as funds placed temporarily for an application where the record identifies a legitimate source. Temporary intent also requires meaningful consideration of employment, family, community, property, and other return ties. Related family applications cannot stand where they depend entirely on an unreasonable principal decision.

Background

The principal applicant sought a two-year business, management, and marketing master’s degree. Her husband applied for an open work permit, while their children applied for visitor visas.

The family submitted bank records, evidence explaining a substantial rent deposit, other financial accounts, employment documents, property ownership, travel history, and evidence of continuing connections and job opportunities abroad.

Court Findings

• Large Deposits Were Improperly Treated as Artificial Funds

The officer suspected that several substantial deposits had inflated the applicant’s account for demonstration purposes. However, the application contained evidence showing that the money represented a rental deposit received for an apartment owned and leased by the applicant and her husband.

• Explanation for the Source of Funds Was Ignored

The concern was not merely that income was unstable, but that the deposited funds were not legitimate resources. By failing to address the documented rental explanation, the officer reached a conclusion that directly contradicted the evidence before them.

• Complete Financial Position Was Not Assessed

The applicant submitted additional bank accounts, income information, and evidence of funds belonging to her husband. These resources demonstrated that the family possessed more than the amount required for at least the first year, but the officer focused almost exclusively on one account.

• Minister Could Not Supply New Financial Reasons

The Minister argued that the funds did not reflect stable income and were inadequate given Canadian living costs. The Court found that these explanations did not appear in the officer’s reasons and could not be introduced afterward to repair the deficient analysis.

• Employment Letter Was Misunderstood

The officer discounted the employer’s letter because it did not explain why international education was necessary. The letter’s actual purpose was to demonstrate stable past employment, promised re-employment, future salary, and a concrete professional incentive to return after graduation.

• Significant Return Ties Were Overlooked

The family submitted evidence of employment opportunities, relatives, friends, community connections, apartments, a vehicle, and previous travel compliance. The officer did not meaningfully weigh these factors before concluding that the family would remain beyond their authorized stay.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside all four temporary residence decisions, and returned the applications to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Hagh Shenas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1086 (CanLII)