The officer's concerns reflected a problematic venture into 'career counselling': court
The Federal Court overturned the denial of a study permit, finding the decision unreasonable due to a visa officer’s undue focus on the applicant’s career plans.
The applicant was accepted into two certificate programs at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT). The applicant’s study permit was originally refused because the immigration officer doubted that the purpose of the visit aligned with a temporary stay in Canada.
The applicant sought judicial review, arguing procedural unfairness and unreasonableness in the officer’s decision. While the Federal Court rejected the claim of procedural unfairness, it found the decision to be unreasonable and granted the judicial review.
The applicant argued that the officer should have allowed an opportunity to address concerns raised in the decision, suggesting that the officer’s conclusions implied doubts about credibility. However, the court determined that there was no breach of procedural fairness, noting that the standard of fairness for study permit applicants is low.
Referring to prior case law, the court affirmed that officers are not obligated to inform applicants of potential issues in their evidence or provide opportunities to respond. Additionally, the court found no evidence that the officer relied on information outside the record or made explicit credibility determinations. The officer’s reasoning, as documented in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, aligned with standard review procedures.
Although procedural fairness was upheld, the court concluded that the decision was unreasonable due to an improper focus on the applicant’s career plans. The officer questioned the cost-effectiveness of the SAIT programs, given the applicant’s existing qualifications, which included online certificates in supply chain management from reputable institutions.
The court determined that the officer’s concerns reflected a problematic venture into "career counselling." The officer’s conclusions did not clearly explain why the programs were deemed redundant or why the applicant’s intended studies lacked a reasonable progression. Moreover, the officer’s reference to unspecified “local options” for similar studies lacked supporting details, making it difficult to review the rationale.
Further, the court pointed out that there was no explanation as to why the project management program was also considered redundant, as the officer primarily focused on the supply chain course.
Ultimately, the court set aside the original decision and ordered that the application be reconsidered by a different officer. It emphasized that while officers can critically evaluate study permits, they must avoid making subjective judgments about career plans without sufficient justification.
