Ocran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 517 : Temporary Resident Permit Refusal Set Aside After officer Failed to Meaningfully Consider Evidence Supporting PGWP Eligibility and Compelling Reasons

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Stephanie Dwomo Ocran’s temporary resident permit application. The Ghanaian applicant had studied at Confederation College in Ontario but unintentionally remained in Canada after her study permit expired. She sought a TRP to regularize her status and preserve her ability to apply for a post-graduation work permit. The officer refused the request, stating that she could leave Canada and apply from abroad. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to meaningfully address her evidence, the practical consequences of departure, and her central explanation for seeking relief.

Key Principle

A temporary resident permit decision is highly discretionary, but the officer must still meaningfully consider the applicant’s evidence and central submissions. Where an applicant identifies a specific immigration consequence that cannot realistically be remedied by leaving Canada, the officer must assess whether that consequence constitutes a compelling reason for temporary relief. A general statement that all materials were reviewed does not cure reasons that ignore important evidence, fail to conduct the required need-versus-risk assessment, or misunderstand the problem the TRP application was intended to address.

Background

The applicant began studying at Confederation College in 2020. Because of COVID-19 restrictions, she initially studied online from Ghana before moving to Thunder Bay in January 2021.

Her passport contained a temporary resident visa expiring in June 2023, but her study permit expired in July 2022. She mistakenly believed the visa expiry date governed her authorization to study. She also changed programs without realizing that she needed to extend her study permit.

After discovering the mistake, she obtained advice and immediately stopped working when told that she lacked authorization.

Her TRP application explained that leaving Canada would prevent her from applying for a PGWP from abroad and could cause her to lose a job being held for her. She submitted support letters from college officials, her landlord, a friend, and her employer, who described a significant need for her home-support skills.

Court Findings

• Material Evidence Was Ignored

The officer did not address the COVID-19-related difficulties, the community support letters, the employer’s evidence, or the effect of requiring the applicant to leave Canada.

• PGWP Conundrum Was Not Considered

The applicant explained that unauthorized work could bar a PGWP application for six months, while the PGWP itself had to be requested within six months of completing studies. The officer failed to engage with this conflict.

• Departure Was Not a Complete Answer

The officer simply stated that the applicant could regularize her status from outside Canada. The Court found that this did not address whether departure would create the harsh consequence that a TRP could potentially remedy.

• Reasons Were Conclusory

The officer asserted that all materials had been considered but did not show how the evidence was assessed or whether the applicant’s need outweighed any risk to Canadian society.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the TRP application to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ocran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 517 (CanLII)