Masam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 751 : Refusal Upheld Where Private College Was Not Eligible for Post-Graduation Work Permit

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Spoorthy Susan Dawalitha Masam’s post-graduation work permit application. Ms. Masam completed programs at George Brown College and the private Canadian College for Higher Studies (CCHS), both designated learning institutions. The officer found CCHS was not an eligible institution for the PGWP program and that Ms. Masam applied more than 90 days after completing her studies at an eligible institution. The Court upheld the refusal and rejected her procedural fairness and legitimate expectation arguments.

Key Principle

Being listed as a designated learning institution does not automatically make an institution or its programs eligible for the PGWP program. Study permit and PGWP eligibility are governed by different requirements. An applicant bears the responsibility of establishing PGWP eligibility, and an officer is not required to provide advance notice of concerns arising directly from published program requirements. Legitimate expectation is procedural and cannot create a substantive entitlement to a work permit.

Background

Ms. Masam, an Indian citizen, came to Canada as a student in August 2015. She completed an Autism and Behavioural Science program at George Brown College on April 22, 2016, followed by a Diploma in Business Administration at CCHS on August 25, 2017.

She applied for a PGWP on October 1, 2017. The officer determined that CCHS was a private, non-degree-conferring institution and could not be counted as an eligible institution for PGWP purposes. Because her qualifying studies at George Brown had ended in April 2016, the October 2017 application was well outside the then-applicable 90-day application period.

Ms. Masam argued that CCHS appeared on IRCC’s designated learning institution list and that other CCHS graduates had received PGWPs.

Court Findings

• DLI Status Did Not Establish PGWP Eligibility

The Court emphasized that the designated learning institution list concerns eligibility for study permits. PGWPs are subject to separate requirements, and not every DLI or program qualifies. IRCC’s website specifically warned applicants that not all programs offered by DLIs were PGWP eligible. Ms. Masam provided no evidence establishing that CCHS met the PGWP requirements.

• No Procedural Fairness Breach

The eligibility of CCHS arose directly from the PGWP criteria and was fundamental to the application. Ms. Masam therefore knew or ought to have known that the institution’s eligibility would be assessed. The officer was not required to warn her or invite further submissions. The refusal letter together with the GCMS notes also provided adequate reasons.

• Legitimate Expectation Did Not Create PGWP Entitlement

The Court rejected the argument that CCHS’s DLI listing or PGWPs previously issued to other CCHS graduates created a legitimate expectation of approval. Legitimate expectation protects procedural expectations, not substantive outcomes. There was no clear representation from IRCC that CCHS was PGWP eligible. Evidence concerning other graduates was also not before the officer and did not establish a consistent practice or prove CCHS eligibility.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review. Ms. Masam had not established that CCHS was an eligible PGWP institution, and her application was filed well beyond 90 days after completing her eligible George Brown program. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Masam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 751 (CanLII)