JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview

[1] The Applicant, Mahyar Ghajarzadeh, is seeking a Judicial Review under section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] concerning the rejection of their Study Permit application for Canada. The Judicial Review is granted for the following reasons.

[2] The Applicant is a 38-year-old Iranian citizen who applied for a study permit to obtain a Project Management Graduate Certificate (PMGC) at Cambrian College.

[3] The Applicant holds a Bachelor of Civil Engineering and a Masters degree in Enterprise Entrepreneurship from two different Iranian universities.

[4] The Applicant had provided a study plan and corroborating documents from his employer in Iran that he would get a promotion with a significant increase in his salary if he completed the stated PMGC.

[5] In rejecting his study permit application, the Visa Officer (“Officer”) reviewing his file noted the following in the Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, which constitute the reasons:

I have reviewed the application for re-determination. After re-opening the application, PA was given 30 days to provide updated documentation. PA provided updated information. Study plan reviewed and considered. The applicant does not demonstrate to my satisfaction reasons for which such an educational program would be of benefit. In light of the PA’s previous study and current career, their motivation to pursue studies in Canada at this point does not seem reasonable. Applicant provided letter of support from their employer. Although the letter states a promotion it does not articulate in detail the necessity of the international education. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.

II. Issues and Standard of Review

[6] The only issue before me is whether the decision is reasonable.

[7] Reasonableness review is a deferential and disciplined evaluation of whether an administrative decision is transparent, intelligible and justified: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paras 12-13 and 15 [Vavilov]; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21, at paras 8, 63 [Mason].

[8] I have started by reading the reasons of the decision-maker in conjunction with the record that was before them holistically and contextually. As guided by Vavilov, at paras 83, 84 and 87, as the reviewing judge, I have focused on the decision-maker’s reasoning process. I have not considered whether the decision-maker’s decision was correct, or what I would do if I were deciding the matter myself: Vavilov, at para 83; Canada (Justice) v D.V., 2022 FCA 181, at paras 15, 23.

[9] A reasonable decision is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrained the decision-maker: Vavilov, esp. at paras 85, 91-97, 103, 105-106 and 194; Canada Post Corp v Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2019 SCC 67, [2019] 4 SCR 900, at paras 2, 28-33, 61; Mason, at paras 8, 59-61, 66. For a decision to be unreasonable, the applicant must establish that the decision contains flaws that are sufficiently central or significant (Vavilov at para 100). Not all errors or concerns about a decision will warrant intervention.

III. Legislative Overview

[10] The following sections of IRPA are relevant:

[11] The following sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] are also relevant:

IV. Analysis

A. Was the Officer’s decision reasonable?

[12] On a study permit application, the Applicant must establish that they meet the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR. Visa officers have a wide discretion in their assessment of the application and the Court ought to provide considerable deference to an Officer’s decision given the level of expertise they bring to these matters. The onus is on the Applicant who seeks temporary entry to Canada to establish and satisfy a visa officer that they will leave Canada at the end of the authorized period of stay requested.

[13] In addition, in assessing the reasonableness of the decision, the Court recognizes that the high volume of visa decisions and the narrow consequences of a refusal are such that extensive reasons are not required: Vavilov at paras 88, 91; Lingepo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 552 at para 13; Yuzer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 781 at paras 9, 16 [Yuzer]; Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1298 at paras 19–20. Nonetheless, the reasons given by the Officer must, when read in the context of the record, adequately explain and justify why the application was refused: Yuzer at paras 9, 20; Hashemi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1562 at para 35 [Hashemi]; Vavilov at paras 86, 93–98.

V. Study Plan

[14] The Applicant’s study plan was the determinative issue for the Officer. The Officer noted that given the Applicant’s previous study and current career, he had not established that he would benefit from his Canadian education. This is while the Applicant’s study plan had clearly noted that he had a job offer from his current employer which was contingent on obtaining the certificate offered by the program of study. He states:

Most importantly, I am thrilled to have received a job offer as a Project Manager from Mehr Parsian Exir Company. This opportunity is contingent upon my successful completion of the project management program in Canada. Assuming this role will allow me to embark on the next project and allow me to oversee multiple endeavors, including large-scale developments. As a Project Manager, I will be responsible for personnel recruitment, material analysis, financial management, and various other tasks. I am deeply honored to have secured this job offer, and I am eagerly looking forward to fulfilling our mutual commitments outlined in the pre-contract agreement. With the added benefits of a substantial salary increase of 70% to 80% and the opportunity to make strategic decisions, I am enthusiastically prepared to contribute my skills and expertise to the success of future projects.

[15] It is difficult to understand the conclusion that a professional promotion accompanied by a significant salary increase conferred no benefit. Reaching such a conclusion without engaging with evidence to the contrary disregards both the factual record and basic logic. At a minimum, the evidence required meaningful consideration to explain how a professional promotion resulting in significantly higher wages would be viewed of no benefit.

[16] While officers are afforded a broad discretion, that discretion must be exercised on the basis of the evidence before them and objective reasoning. It cannot rest on subjective beliefs or personal biases. The use of the phrase “to my satisfaction”, under the circumstances, risks transforming the evidentiary standard into a moving target, one defined solely by the personal views of the Officer not supported by the evidence or objective criteria. Disregarding the evidence in favour of personal beliefs would render decision-making unpredictable and would undermine both fairness and transparency in decision-making. By not engaging with the contrary evidence in any way, the Officer made an arbitrary decision (Seyedsalehi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1250).

[17] The Officer referenced the employer’s letter and found that even though it had mentioned promotion, it did not articulate in detail the necessity of international education. I do not find that referencing the letter, ignoring a material fact stated in it, namely the significant salary increase contingent on the completion of the program, would amount to engagement with the evidence. Given the totality of the evidence before the Officer, more was required to justify how the Officer weighed the evidence to conclude that the Applicant’s proposed studies were not reasonable. I find this to be analogous to what the Court found in Ahadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 25 at para 15 and 16.

[18] In summary, if the study plan and the employer’s letter offered no explanation of a benefit to the Applicant to obtain a Canadian education, one would expect to see a chain of reasoning to explain, even if briefly, how the evidence to the contrary was treated. The lack of analysis makes the decision arbitrary, devoid of a rational chain of reasoning.

VI. Conclusion

[19] The Officer’s decision is unreasonable, as it does not exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility, and transparency. The application for judicial review is granted and the decision set aside.

[20] Neither party proposed a question for certification and I agree that none arises in this matter.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-12877-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that

1. The Judicial Review is granted. The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different Officer.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: