In Ofori v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC
212, the Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an application for
restoration of temporary resident status together with a Post-Graduation Work
Permit (PGWP).
The applicant had completed her studies at the University of
Ottawa, but her study permit expired before she applied for restoration and a
PGWP. Although she submitted the restoration application within the 90-day
restoration period then provided by the Regulations, the Court upheld IRCC’s
refusal.
Key Principle
Submitting a restoration application within the prescribed
restoration period does not automatically entitle an applicant to
restoration.
Under section 182 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, an applicant must also continue to satisfy the initial
requirements for the status being restored.
In this case, the applicant sought restoration of student
status solely so that she could obtain a PGWP. Because she had already
completed her studies and had no intention of undertaking further studies, the
Court held that it was reasonable to find that she no longer met the initial
requirements for student status.
Background
The applicant entered Canada as an international student in
2015 and graduated from the University of Ottawa in June 2017. Her study permit
expired on August 31, 2017.
In October 2017, she applied for restoration of status and a
PGWP. The officer refused both requests.
The applicant argued that she had applied for restoration
within 90 days of losing status and that her intention was not to resume
studies but simply to restore her status sufficiently to obtain a PGWP.
She argued that the officer should have assessed whether she
met the requirements for the work permit rather than requiring her to satisfy
the conditions for another study permit.
Court Findings
The Federal Court rejected the applicant’s interpretation of
the restoration provisions.
To restore student status, the applicant was required to
continue meeting the initial requirements applicable to that status. One of
those requirements was that the individual be accepted to undertake a program
of study at a designated learning institution.
The applicant had completed her studies and expressly had no
intention of studying further. Her sole purpose in seeking restoration was
to obtain the status needed to qualify for a PGWP. The Court therefore found it
reasonable for the officer to conclude that she did not meet the initial
requirements for restoration of student status.
The Court also upheld the officer’s treatment of the PGWP
application. Under the PGWP program delivery instructions applicable at the
time, an applicant was required to possess a valid study permit when
applying for the PGWP. The applicant did not hold one when she applied.
The Court noted that earlier Federal Court decisions had
recognized that officers could apply those PGWP eligibility requirements
strictly. Accordingly, the fact that the restoration application had been filed
within 90 days did not cure the separate failure to satisfy the PGWP
eligibility criteria then in force.
Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial
review, finding that the officer reasonably interpreted and applied the
restoration provisions and the PGWP eligibility requirements applicable at that
time.
Case Citation:
Ofori v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 212 CanLII
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
