Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 279 : In-Canada Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Consider Evidence of Completed Prerequisite Program

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Xiang Li’s in-Canada study permit application. Mr. Li entered Canada as a visitor, completed an English-language pathway program at Heartland International English School, and was then accepted into a CAD Technician certificate program at the Manitoba Institute of Trades and Technology.

The visa officer refused the application on the basis that Mr. Li was not eligible to apply for a study permit from within Canada under paragraph 215(1)(f)(iii) of the IRPR because his letter of acceptance did not expressly state that the Heartland program was a prerequisite. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to consider the additional evidence showing that successful completion of Heartland’s program satisfied MITT’s English-language admission requirement.

Key Principle

Under paragraph 215(1)(f)(iii) of the IRPR, a temporary resident may apply for a study permit from within Canada after completing a course or program of study that is a prerequisite to enrolling at a designated learning institution. The regulation does not require that the prerequisite appear expressly on the letter of acceptance. Where an applicant provides other evidence demonstrating that the prerequisite was required and completed, the officer must meaningfully assess that evidence. Ministerial guidelines cannot replace or narrow the wording of the regulation.

Background

Mr. Li entered Canada in January 2019 on a multiple-entry visitor visa. From February to April 2019, he completed an English-language program at Heartland.

MITT’s published admissions information stated that international students who completed specified Heartland pathway levels with the required grade would satisfy MITT’s English-language requirement for technical programs.

Mr. Li completed the program with marks exceeding the required threshold. He subsequently received an MITT letter of acceptance for the CAD Technician certificate and applied for a study permit from inside Canada.

The officer refused the application because the MITT letter stated “N/A” under conditions of acceptance and did not specifically identify the Heartland program as a prerequisite.

Court Findings

• Officer Could Not Treat the Letter of Acceptance as Conclusive

The Court held that a letter of acceptance stating “N/A” for conditions does not necessarily mean that no prerequisite existed. It may also mean that the applicant had already completed the prerequisite before the institution issued the letter.

The officer therefore had to consider the remaining evidence.

• Evidence Clearly Established the Prerequisite

MITT’s website identified Heartland as an approved pathway partner. An email from MITT Admissions also specifically requested Mr. Li’s Heartland completion letter before assessing his application.

The Court found this evidence strongly supported the conclusion that completing the Heartland program was a prerequisite for enrollment.

• IRCC Guidelines Could Not Narrow the Regulation

The Minister relied on operational guidelines suggesting the prerequisite should appear on the letter of acceptance and be tied to entry into the “main program.”

The Court found that this wording did not align with paragraph 215(1)(f)(iii), which refers more broadly to completing a “course or program of study” required for “enrolling at a designated learning institution.”

The Court emphasized that administrative guidelines are not law and cannot override the text of the regulation.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal, and remitted the application to a different visa officer for redetermination. The officer’s failure to engage with the evidence of Mr. Li’s completed prerequisite program rendered the decision unreasonable.

Case Citation:

Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 279 (CanLII)