Outcome:
Judicial Review Dismissed
➢ Introduction
The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a study permit
application by a Ukrainian applicant who was already in Canada as a visitor and
sought to study Business Information Technology Management at BCIT.
The Court upheld the refusal because the officer reasonably
found that the applicant had weak ties to Ukraine and had not established that
he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.
➢ Key Principle
A study permit applicant must satisfy the officer that they
will leave Canada at the end of the authorized period.
An officer may consider the applicant’s immigration history,
family and employment ties, financial circumstances and previous extensions of
temporary status when assessing this requirement.
Where the concerns arise directly from the requirements of
the Regulations and are based on the evidence submitted by the applicant, the
officer is generally not required to provide an opportunity to respond
before refusing the application.
➢ Background
The applicant was a 29-year-old citizen of Ukraine who held
a diploma in Computer Technologies and had been provisionally accepted into the
Business Information Technology Management program at BCIT.
He was married and his wife remained in Ukraine. His mother
lived in Canada.
The applicant originally entered Canada in 2012 on a visitor
visa to visit his mother. Instead of returning to Ukraine as initially planned,
he extended his visitor status and later applied for a study permit from within
Canada.
The study permit was refused because the officer was not
satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized
stay. The officer considered his family ties, length of stay, purpose of study,
employment situation and financial circumstances.
➢ Court Findings
The Federal Court found that the officer’s conclusion was
reasonably supported by the evidence.
The applicant argued that the officer had relied on mere
suspicion, particularly the statement in the GCMS notes that he “might try
to remain in Canada for good.”
The Court found that the statement had to be read in
context. The applicant had originally entered Canada as a visitor, extended his
stay and then applied for a study permit. Although his application stated that
he had employment in Ukraine, the employment history indicated that this
employment had ended in November 2012.
The officer was therefore entitled to find that the
applicant’s ties to Ukraine were weak and that his circumstances raised
concerns about his intention to leave Canada.
The Court also rejected the procedural fairness argument.
The officer had not raised concerns about the credibility or authenticity of
the applicant’s documents. Rather, the application simply did not satisfy the
officer, on the evidence provided, that the applicant would leave Canada as
required by section 216 of the Regulations.
Because the concerns arose directly from the statutory and
regulatory requirements, the officer was not required to give the applicant an
additional opportunity to respond.
➢ Outcome
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial
review and upheld the refusal of the study permit.
Case Citation:
Puida v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 781 CanLII
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian
Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
