Mehmi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1012 : PGWP Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Misapplied 180-Day Requirement and Misunderstood Eligibility Rules

The Federal Court reviewed Chetan Mehmi’s refusal of a Post-Graduate Work Permit and restoration of temporary resident status. The officer refused the PGWP because the applicant allegedly did not hold a valid study permit at the time of application. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer misunderstood the PGWP requirements and failed to apply the correct 180-day eligibility framework.

Key Principle

A PGWP decision must be based on the correct version of the applicable program requirements. An officer cannot impose a requirement that is inconsistent with IRCC’s own guidelines. Where the officer identifies the correct policy but reaches a conclusion that contradicts it, the decision lacks a rational chain of analysis.

Background

The applicant was an Indian citizen who studied Health Care Administration at St. Lawrence College and completed that program in 2018. He immediately continued studies in Supply Chain Management and completed the second program in April 2019. He received transcripts confirming completion of his studies and applied for a PGWP in July 2019.

The first PGWP application was refused because the officer assessed eligibility based only on the completion date of the Health Care Administration program. The applicant submitted a second PGWP application and restoration application after his study permit expired.

Court Findings

• Previous PGWP Refusal Was Reasonable

The Court found that the first PGWP refusal was reasonable. The applicant had not provided evidence showing completion of his Supply Chain Management program in his original application. Based on the documents before that officer, it was reasonable to rely on the Health Care Administration completion date shown on the transcript and diploma.

• Officer Was Not Required to Request Additional Evidence

The applicant argued that procedural fairness required the officer to request further information about the second program. The Court rejected this argument. The missing evidence related directly to the PGWP requirements, and the applicant had the responsibility to provide sufficient documentation with his application.

• Second PGWP Refusal Misapplied the Policy

The second officer refused the PGWP because the applicant did not hold a valid study permit at the time of applying. The Court found this reasoning inconsistent with the PGWP Program Delivery Instructions. The policy required applicants to have held a valid study permit within the relevant 180-day period, not necessarily on the exact date of application.

• Officer Ignored the Correct 180-Day Framework

The officer cited the PGWP requirements but failed to apply the separate requirement that applicants apply within 180 days of receiving written confirmation of program completion. The refusal therefore relied on an incorrect interpretation of the policy.

• Correct Outcome Alone Did Not Save an Unreasonable Decision

The Court acknowledged that the applicant may ultimately have failed to meet the PGWP deadline because he applied more than 180 days after receiving final marks. However, reasonableness review examines both the result and the reasoning. A potentially correct outcome cannot stand when the rationale is based on an incorrect legal analysis.

• Restoration Refusal Was Reasonable

The Court upheld the restoration refusal. Because the applicant was found ineligible for a PGWP, it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that he did not meet the requirements for restoration. Restoration depended on continuing to meet the requirements of the temporary resident status and applicable permit.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review of the May 2020 decision, set aside the refusal, and allowed the matter to proceed for reconsideration. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Mehmi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1012 (CanLII)