Sugagata v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1436 : PGWP Refusal Quashed After Officer Ignored Evidence Explaining Non-Compliance with Full-Time Study Requirements

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Yuka Sugagata’s post-graduation work permit application. The officer found that she did not satisfy the continuous full-time study requirement because she was enrolled part-time during Fall 2019. The applicant explained that illness delayed her final examination and the release of her transcript from the International College of Manitoba, preventing her from registering for enough courses at the University of Manitoba. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to consider these circumstances or demonstrate that the required “best judgment” had been exercised.

Key Principle

Although PGWP eligibility requirements are established by ministerial policy and officers cannot rewrite them, the policy governing compliance with study permit conditions directs officers to exercise their best judgment and consider all relevant factors. This includes circumstances beyond a student’s control that cause temporary part-time enrollment. The direction to exercise best judgment provides a degree of discretion to accept less than perfect compliance where the applicant acted diligently and otherwise completed the program in accordance with its normal requirements.

Background

The applicant began studying at the International College of Manitoba before transferring to the University of Manitoba.

During her final term at the college, she developed tonsillitis. This delayed her final examination and the transmission of her academic transcript.

The University required the final transcript before she could register. Because of the delay, she could not enroll in enough courses to maintain full-time status in Fall 2019.

She also withdrew from one course during Winter 2020 under a university policy introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Apart from these periods, she studied full-time, completed summer courses to compensate, and finished her Bachelor of Arts degree by October 2022 within the normal program timeframe.

Court Findings

• Officers Must Exercise “Best Judgment” When Assessing PGWP Eligibility
The Court held that although Post-Graduation Work Permit eligibility requirements are established by ministerial policy, officers are expressly directed to exercise their best judgment when assessing compliance with study permit conditions. This requires an individualized assessment of all relevant circumstances rather than a mechanical application of the full-time study requirement.

• Illness and Administrative Delays Were Beyond the Applicant’s Control
The applicant explained that tonsillitis delayed her final examination and the release of her transcript, preventing timely registration for a full-time course load. The Court found that this explanation was supported by both medical evidence and documentation from the educational institution, yet the officer failed to meaningfully consider it.

• Officer Failed to Address the Applicant’s Explanation
The Court held that the officer’s reasons were silent regarding the evidence explaining why the applicant became a part-time student. By ignoring the applicant’s documented explanation, the officer failed to demonstrate that the required “best judgment” had actually been exercised.

• Less Than Perfect Compliance May Be Accepted in Exceptional Circumstances
The Court found that the policy requiring officers to exercise best judgment necessarily permits some flexibility where temporary non-compliance results from circumstances beyond a student’s control. Officers are therefore not required to reject every application involving an isolated period of part-time studies without considering the surrounding facts.

• Overall Academic Record Supported the Applicant’s Compliance
The applicant remained a full-time student for the remainder of her studies, completed additional summer courses, and finished her degree within the normal timeframe. The Court concluded that refusing the PGWP despite these circumstances produced an unreasonable result, particularly because the applicant would have been better off taking a complete leave of studies rather than diligently completing her program on time.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the PGWP refusal, and returned the application to a different officer for redetermination. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Sugagata v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1436 (CanLII)