The
Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a Canada Border Services Agency
exclusion order. The Court found that the officer reasonably concluded the
applicant had failed to comply with her study permit conditions by not
remaining enrolled and not actively pursuing her program of study under
subsection 220.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.
Key
Principle
The
decision confirms that a study permit holder must remain enrolled and
actively pursue their studies. A gap in studies may support an exclusion order
where the student cannot explain continued non-enrolment, has no authorized
leave, and has not taken steps that fall within the applicable 150-day policy.
Evidence obtained after the exclusion order generally cannot be used to
challenge the officer’s assessment.
Background
Sumanpreet
Kaur, a citizen of India, held a study permit and was enrolled in a
four-semester Health Sciences program at Langara College. She completed three
semesters but did not study during the January 2018, September 2018, or January
2019 terms.
The
applicant explained that she could not secure required courses for the
September 2018 semester because classes were full. She later attended a port of
entry seeking a work permit, stating that she needed to work more than the 20
hours permitted to students and planned to return to school in September 2019.
CBSA
issued a section 44(1) inadmissibility report and an exclusion order under
section 228 of the IRPR, finding that she had failed to actively pursue her
studies.
Court
Findings
Justice
Ahmed found the exclusion order reasonable.
Even
accepting that the applicant could not enrol in September 2018 because required
courses were unavailable, she did not explain why she failed to enrol in the
following January 2019 semester. At the time of the CBSA interview, she was not
registered for future studies and had not told the officer that she intended to
take a part-time course in May 2019.
The
Court held that later evidence of registration for the September 2019 semester
could not be considered because it was not before the officer when the
exclusion order was issued.
The
applicant also argued that she had attempted to change her status within 150
days. The Court rejected this argument because the 150-day policy applied to
students changing institutions or programs, or taking authorized leave from
their designated learning institution. She had not changed programs or
institutions and had not obtained authorized leave from Langara College.
The
Court further found no procedural unfairness. The applicant was interviewed in
person, given an opportunity to respond to the concerns, and received the
exclusion order.
The
Federal Court dismissed the judicial review and upheld the exclusion order.
Case Citation: Kaur v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 1581 (CanLII)
