Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1003 : Study Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Misapplied Online Study Rules and Conflated Regulatory Provisions

The Federal Court reviewed Gao Li’s refusal of an inland study permit application. The officer found that he was not eligible to apply from within Canada because he completed a prerequisite English course after the expiry of his visitor status period. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer incorrectly imported requirements from one regulatory provision into another and failed to analyze the applicant’s online course circumstances.

Key Principle

A decision-maker must apply the correct statutory and regulatory framework. Provisions that appear related cannot be combined without legal justification. Where an applicant relies on a specific eligibility pathway, the officer must analyze that pathway directly and consider relevant circumstances, including applicable policy guidance and the nature of the studies completed.

Background

The applicant was a Chinese citizen who entered Canada as a visitor in January 2020. His visitor status was extended until November 2020. While in Canada, he completed an online English prerequisite course from June 1, 2020, to November 6, 2020, and applied for a study permit for a Culinary Management Program at Centennial College under subparagraph 215(1)(f)(iii) of the IRPR.

The officer refused the application, stating that the prerequisite course was completed after the initial six-month period authorized upon entry and that the applicant therefore could not apply for a study permit from within Canada.

Court Findings

• Officer’s Affidavit Could Not Repair the Decision

The Court refused to rely on the officer’s later affidavit because it attempted to expand upon the limited reasons in the decision. The affidavit introduced detailed discussion of Program Delivery Instructions that were not referenced as the basis for the refusal. The Court held that an officer cannot supplement deficient reasons after the fact through affidavit evidence.

• Applicant’s Functus Officio Argument Failed

The applicant argued that the officer initially found him eligible and could not later reverse the decision. The Court rejected this argument because the initial assessment was never communicated to the applicant and no formal decision had been issued. The doctrine of functus officio therefore did not apply.

• Officer Conflated Different Regulatory Provisions

The applicant applied under subparagraph 215(1)(f)(iii), which allows certain temporary residents to apply for study permits from within Canada after completing a prerequisite course. The officer instead relied on paragraph 188(1)(c), which concerns individuals who do not require a study permit for short courses completed within their authorized stay.

The Court found that the officer imported the six-month limitation from paragraph 188(1)(c) into the analysis of subparagraph 215(1)(f)(iii), even though the latter provision does not incorporate that requirement. The legislation did not support that interpretation.

• Online Study Circumstances Were Not Considered

The applicant argued that his English prerequisite course was completed online and therefore was not subject to the same study permit requirements as an in-person program. The Court found that the officer failed to address this argument or consider whether the COVID-era Program Delivery Instructions applied to his circumstances.

• Decision Lacked Rational Chain of Analysis

The Court held that the officer failed to engage with the actual provision relied upon by the applicant and did not explain why the online prerequisite course prevented him from applying inside Canada. The decision therefore lacked the internally coherent reasoning required by Vavilov.

• Certified Questions Were Not Appropriate

The applicant proposed questions concerning unauthorized study and distance learning. The Court declined certification because the case depended heavily on its specific facts rather than a broad legal issue requiring appellate guidance.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1003 (CanLII)