The Federal Court reviewed
the refusal of a Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP) application based on the
applicant’s part-time enrollment during one academic semester. The Court
allowed the judicial review, holding that although PGWP eligibility
requirements must generally be applied strictly, officers must still exercise
their judgment and consider relevant circumstances explaining a student’s
temporary non-compliance. The decision builds on Munyanyi v Canada and
confirms that not every period of part-time study automatically disqualifies a
PGWP applicant.
Key Principle
The Court reaffirmed that when
assessing PGWP eligibility, officers must consider extenuating circumstances
that explain temporary departures from full-time study requirements. The
obligation to exercise “best judgment” requires a meaningful assessment of the
applicant’s specific circumstances and may permit flexibility where
non-compliance results from factors beyond the student’s control.
Background
Yuka Sugagata, a citizen of
Japan, studied at the International College of Manitoba (ICM) before
transferring to the University of Manitoba. During her final term at ICM in
2019, she developed tonsillitis, which delayed her final examinations and the
issuance of her academic transcript. Because the University of Manitoba
required the transcript before registration, the delay prevented her from
enrolling in enough courses to maintain full-time status during the Fall 2019
semester.
The applicant also withdrew
from one course in Winter 2020 under temporary academic measures introduced
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Aside from those limited interruptions, she
maintained full-time studies, completed additional summer courses, and finished
her Bachelor of Arts degree within the normal program timeframe.
When she later applied for a
PGWP, the officer refused the application because she had been enrolled
part-time during Fall 2019 and therefore did not satisfy the requirement that
PGWP applicants maintain full-time status throughout their studies.
Court Findings
The Federal Court found the
refusal unreasonable. Justice Grammond acknowledged that officers generally
have no authority to waive the eligibility requirements for a PGWP. However,
the applicable policy also instructs officers to “exercise their best
judgment” and consider all relevant factors when assessing compliance with
study permit conditions.
The Court held that
exercising best judgment necessarily requires consideration of circumstances
beyond a student’s control. The applicant had provided a detailed explanation,
supported by documentary evidence from ICM, showing that illness delayed her examinations
and transcript issuance, which in turn prevented timely registration at the
University of Manitoba. The officer’s reasons failed to address any of this
evidence.
The Court further noted that
the applicant completed her degree within the normal timeframe and actively
worked to remain on track academically. Ignoring these circumstances produced
an unreasonable result. The Court also observed an inconsistency in the
officer’s reasoning: while relying heavily on the applicant’s part-time status
in Fall 2019, the officer appeared to overlook a later period of part-time
enrollment in Winter 2020.
The Federal Court granted
the judicial review, set aside the PGWP refusal, and returned the matter to a
different officer for reconsideration.
Case Citation: Sugagata v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1436 (CanLII)
