Kelidbari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 366 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Misread Study Plan and Family Ties

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Mohammadamin Ghorbani Kelidbari’s study permit application to complete Grade 10 at a private high school in Vancouver. The officer concluded that the proposed studies were not reasonable, that the applicant had not provided an adequate study plan, and that his family ties did not support temporary intent. The Court found several central factual errors that undermined confidence that the officer had meaningfully considered the application.

Key Principle

A study permit decision is unreasonable where the officer’s reasons rest on material factual errors demonstrating that central evidence may not have been meaningfully considered. An officer must assess a minor applicant according to their actual circumstances, including parental dependence, educational objectives, and genuine family ties, rather than relying on generalized observations more appropriate to an independent adult applicant.

Background

The applicant was 16 years old and sought to complete Grade 10 in Vancouver. His immigration consultant submitted a letter explaining the perceived advantages of Canadian secondary education, including educational quality, technology, university preparation, and future employment opportunities. His parents had already paid approximately $20,000 in school fees and stated that an additional $44,500 was available for living and related expenses.

Court Findings

• Officer Incorrectly Found There Was No Explanation Letter

The GCMS notes stated that there was “No Explanation letter to review” and that no study plan clarified how the Canadian program would benefit the applicant. However, the application contained a letter from the immigration consultant specifically explaining why the family wanted the applicant to complete high school in Canada.

• Educational Rationale May Not Have Been Considered

The consultant explained that the family viewed Canadian secondary education as offering higher quality instruction, better technology and resources, stronger university preparation, and advantages unavailable through local schooling. The Court found it unclear whether the officer had actually read or considered these reasons before concluding that the proposed studies lacked sufficient benefit.

• Officer Failed to Account for Applicant’s Age and Dependency

The officer described the applicant as “single, mobile, not well established and has no dependents.” The Court found this characterization concerning because the applicant was a 16-year-old high school student who remained financially and otherwise dependent on his parents. The reasoning suggested that the officer may have assessed him as though he were an independent adult applicant.

• Family-Ties Finding Was Factually Incorrect

The refusal letter relied on the applicant’s family ties in Canada and abroad when assessing whether he would leave at the end of his authorized stay. In fact, the applicant had no family members in Canada. This factual error directly undermined one of the officer’s stated reasons for questioning temporary intent.

• Central Errors Undermined Confidence in the Decision

The Court accepted that applicants bear the burden of establishing eligibility and that officers need not discuss every piece of evidence. However, the combination of incorrectly stating that no explanation letter existed, relying on nonexistent Canadian family ties, and apparently misunderstanding the applicant’s dependency raised serious doubt that the officer was alert and sensitive to the actual application before them.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the study permit refusal, and remitted the application to a different visa officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Kelidbari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 366 (CanLII)