M********* v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database | Federal Court Decisions |
Date | 2020-02-11 |
Neutral citation | 2020 *C 2*0 |
File numbers | IMM-2**7-** |
"The applicant notes that Canada’s policy has evolved. The government now wants to attract students, and encourage them to continue their journey in Canada after their studies. The post-graduation work visa is a testament to this intention. In this context, the fact that an applicant harbours another intention simultaneous with an intention to study, so long as this intention is legitimate, cannot be a ground for refusal. "
"When reviewing a visa officer’s factual assessment of an application for a student visa and the officer’s belief that an applicant will not leave Canada at the end of his or her stay,
the standard of review is reasonableness:
S***** v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 6*0 at para *2 [
Sol****]; *
**aali***** v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1**0 at para *1. "
The applicant submits that in the case at bar, the officer’s refusal was unreasonable because the reasons given for refusing the study permit are unrelated to the evidence on record, and because the officer ignored evidence in the record that contradicts his findings. The role of a reviewing court is to detect the irrationality or arbitrariness of a decision:
Pe**** v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1** at para 1*;
Ka*****-Mi***n v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2*18 FC 5** at para *3.
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is as follows :
"The application for judicial review is allowed, and the matter is referred back for redetermination by a different officer."
William F. Pentney”
Justice