The Canadian Federal Court has found that a candidate’s study permit denial based on previous poor academic performance and “inconsistent” academic achievements was unjustified, and thus the request was authorized to judicial evaluation.
In 2021, the candidate, a citizen of India, received a letter of acceptance to start a full-time graduate program perusing International Business Management at Niagara College in Toronto. Along with his letter of acceptance, the candidate submitted a study permit and temporary residence permit request to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).
A few months later, the applicant received a message informing him that his study permit was declined. The officer specified that the two reasons for denial were low prior academic performance and varying educational goals.
In particular, the officer indicated that the applicant had low average results in his main subjects of 40% to 59% from his records from the University of Mumbai. With reference to this information, the officer was not satisfied that the candidate had established the academic ability required to effectively complete the study program in Canada.
With reference to the “inconsistency” of the applicants’ educational goals, the officer pointed out that the applicant originally applied to Data Analytics for Business and was rejected, and now applied to an International Business Management. The officer requested that these educational goals in Canada were not consistent from one submission to another and the applicant gave no clarification for this inconsistency.
The court held that the officer’s results with respect to his prior academic performance required justification and transparency. In particular, the officer was unsuccessful to link the dots between the applicant’s prior academic history and the likelihood of success in his planned program of study. The court is not in the situation to accept that low grades in one part of study means that the applicant cannot succeed in or complete a program in a different area of study.
The court quoted a similar case, Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), in which the magistrate commented: “one can complete a program effectively without essentially excelling in it. And most of the factors that can regulate academic success are dynamic, not static”.
Additionally, Niagara College was evidently satisfied that the applicant had the needed qualification to complete the program and to make “a significant influence” to the college.
Regarding the consistency of the applicant’s academic goals, the immigration officer failed to deliver sufficient information regarding how a prior application to study Data Analytics for Business, meant that the Applicant’s educational goals were “unreliable”. The applicant submitted a letter explaining his justification for selecting the International Business program. In this situation, especially without additional justification from the officer, it is uncertain how the officer concluded that the two applications confirmed “inconsistent” educational goals.
The implication of this circumstance is that unfortunate academic performance in a prior academic program does not command an applicant’s capability to effectively complete another program, nor should it prevent an applicant from obtaining a study permit. In addition, an applicant might seek to pursue diverse study programs in Canada, as long as they deliver justification or an explanation for their choice.
