Khosravi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 805 : Study Permit Refusal Overturned Based on Inadequate Study Plan Review

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Kimia Khosravi’s study permit for a graduate diploma in Hotel and Tourism Management. The officer considered the program academically lower than her previous studies, redundant, and unreasonable because of its cost. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to meaningfully engage with her study plan and career-change rationale.

Key Principle

An officer must assess a proposed program in light of the applicant’s actual career objectives. A lower academic credential is not inherently unreasonable where the applicant has changed careers and explains how specialized training supports a concrete future business plan. Boilerplate reasons cannot replace individualized consideration of material evidence.

Background

The applicant had studied engineering and earned an MBA before leaving the oil and gas sector for tourism-related work. She planned to develop and operate a resort hotel on family property in northern Iran and explained that hotel-management studies would provide the specialized knowledge needed for that project.

Court Findings

• Lower Academic Level Did Not Make the Program Unreasonable

The officer relied on the proposed diploma being below the applicant’s previous academic level. The Court held that this concern had to be considered in context because the applicant had changed careers and reasonably sought specialized training in a new field.

• Previous Education Was in an Unrelated Field

The officer described the studies as redundant despite the applicant’s engineering and MBA background being different from hotel management. The Court found no explanation for how those qualifications duplicated specialized hotel-management training.

• Tourism Experience Did Not Make Hotel Training Redundant

The applicant worked as a tour guide and tour operator but intended to operate a resort hotel. The Court emphasized that these roles involved different skills, requiring an explanation for why hotel-management training provided no additional benefit.

• Officer Failed to Address the Planned Resort Business

The applicant’s principal reason for studying was to gain knowledge needed to establish and operate a resort on family property. The officer failed to meaningfully address this central feature of her study plan.

• High Cost Finding Depended on the Flawed Benefit Assessment

The officer also found the studies unreasonable because of their cost. The Court held that where meaningful educational benefits are established, the amount an applicant chooses to invest in education is largely a personal decision.

• Boilerplate Reasons Did Not Show Individualized Assessment

The officer used standard language commonly appearing in study permit refusals. While boilerplate wording is not automatically improper, the reasons must demonstrate consideration of the applicant’s specific circumstances, which was lacking here.

• Assisted Decision-Making Did Not Reduce the Officer’s Duty

The application was processed with assistance from Chinook 3+. The Court did not determine whether the tool caused the deficiencies but emphasized that assisted decision-making does not relieve officers from fully considering the application.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, quashed the study permit and related work permit decisions, and remitted the applications to a different visa officer for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Khosravi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 805 (CanLII)