2,611 result(s)
-
1.
Abosede v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 673 - 2024-05-01
Federal Court DecisionsApplicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent [...] [1] The Applicant, Oluwatomisin Victoria Abosede, seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer refusing her study permit application pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. [...] [2] The Applicant is a Nigerian citizen who sought to enter Canada to study at Fairleigh Dickinson University in British Columbia.
-
2.
Parker v. Ontario Medical Association - 2024 FC 667 - 2024-05-01
Federal Court Decisions[2] The Applicants have brought an application for judicial review under s 14 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, SC 2000, c 5 [PIPEDA] concerning a study commissioned by the OMA regarding the overhead expenses incurred by physicians. [...] [21] Here, the information the OMA wishes to disclose to StatCan is intended to permit the identification of its members. [...] [29] The Applicants argue that the proposed study is merely a step in a broader commercial transaction.
-
3.
Alohan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 659 - 2024-04-30
Federal Court Decisions(b) the day on which their permit becomes invalid, in the case of a temporary resident who has been issued either a work permit or a study permit; [...] (b.1) the day on which the second of their permits becomes invalid, in the case of a temporary resident who has been issued a work permit and a study permit; [...] study permit before the expiry of their existing permit and their permit expires before a decision is made, paragraph R186(u) or section R189 authorizes them to work or study without a permit under the same conditions pending a determination of their application for renewal and only as long as the person remains in Canada.
-
4.
Amini v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 653 - 2024-04-29
Federal Court DecisionsThe application is therefore granted and Mr. Amini’s study permit application is remitted for redetermination. [...] [11] The foregoing matters relate to central aspects of the visa officer’s reasons for dismissing Mr. Amini’s study permit application. [...] [12] The application for judicial review will therefore be allowed and Mr. Amini’s study permit application remitted for redetermination.
-
5.
Anttal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 643 - 2024-04-26
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant, a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer [Officer] on November 4, 2022, refusing her application for a spousal open work permit and finding that she was inadmissible to Canada in accordance with paragraph 40(1)(a) of the [...] [13] Moreover and importantly, it must be recalled that an applicant filing a work permit application has a duty of candour. [...] In circumstances such as this, it would be nonsensical to permit a claim of incompetence to overcome the Applicant’s own negligence in performing this duty.
-
6.
Zhao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 645 - 2024-04-26
Federal Court Decisions[1] The applicant, Hong Cheng Zhao [the Applicant], is a Chinese citizen who applied for permanent residence in Canada. [...] [4] The Applicant was born on December 22, 1969, in Beijing. He is a citizen of China who studied between 1988 and 1992 at the People’s Liberation Army [PLA] Information Engineering University [PLAIEU], China’s military university. [...] In his response to the procedural fairness letter, the Applicant stated very clearly that if he was found inadmissible, he wished to be considered for a temporary resident permit to allow him to remain in Canada with his family while he applied for ministerial relief [the TRP Request].
-
7.
Fatima v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 633 - 2024-04-25
Federal Court Decisions[2] The Applicant applied for a study permit on November 30, 2022 to attend a master program at the University of Prince Edward Island. [...] This was the Applicant’s second study permit application for the same program. [...] [9] The “letter of explanation” the Officer referred to was a letter titled, “Response to concerns noted in the GCMS notes,” in which the Applicant appeared to respond to the concern of Saudization raised in a previous study permit refusal.
-
8.
Mahdavi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 629 - 2024-04-25
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant, Abdollah Mahdavi [the Applicant], is a 45 year old citizen of Iran who applied for a study permit to pursue his Masters in Business Administration [MBA] at Trinity Western University [TWU]. [...] [12] The standard of review in matters related to the merits of a study permit decision is reasonableness (Hajiyeva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 71 at para 4 [Hajiyeva]). [...] • The onus is on the applicant to satisfy the officer that they meet the legal requirements for obtaining a study permit, including that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.
-
9.
Zaeri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 638 - 2024-04-25
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant, Maryam Zaeri, seeks judicial review of a visa officer’s decision refusing her study permit application pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”) based on her lack of significant family ties outside of Canada, her assets and financial [...] In my view, the Applicant provided primarily “general assertions” in her study plan, failing to provide “specific reasons” about how the proposed course of study provides different knowledge from her previous master’s degree and work experience, or how, specifically, the studies would benefit her (Mehrjoo v Canada [...] [10] I note that counsel for the Applicant raised many arguments in their written submissions that are similar, or the same, to the written arguments they made in a study permit judicial review application I heard earlier on the day of the hearing of this matter (Court file number IMM-33-23).
-
10.
Jamshidi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 627 - 2024-04-24
Federal Court DecisionsThis is the Applicant’s third study permit application based on an admission offer from Trinity Western University to pursue undergraduate studies in Sports and Leisure Management. [...] [64] I reject the Applicant’s argument. [65] The financial requirement for study permit applicants is set out in section 220 of the IRPR, which provides that visa officers cannot issue a study permit application unless satisfied that an applicant has sufficient funds to pay tuition and maintain themselves while studying in [...] When an applicant does not meet the requirements set out in section 220, the officer has no discretion and must deny the study permit application: Ohuaregbe at para 23.
-
11.
Luk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 623 - 2024-04-24
Federal Court Decisions[2] In his study permit application, the Applicant stated that his rationale for studying in Canada—and for pursuing the Baking and Pastry Arts Management program, in particular—was to qualify under Stream A of Canada’s temporary public policy for Hong Kong residents who are currently in Canada to obtain permanent resident [...] [14] The Applicant asserts that that his right to procedural fairness was breached by the use of artificial intelligence, or an algorithm, in refusing his study permit application. [...] [15] However, there is no evidence before the Court that artificial intelligence or an algorithm was used in rendering a decision on the Applicant’s study permit application.
-
12.
Jalali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 603 - 2024-04-22
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Principle Applicant, Sara Jalali, (“PA”) seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) on February 21, 2023, refusing the PA’s study permit application. [...] [8] By way of letter dated February 21, 2023, the PA’s application for a study permit was denied, along with the applications of the Dependent Applicants (the Decision). [...] [12] I agree with the parties that the appropriate standard of review for the Officer’s refusal of the study permit application is reasonableness.
-
13.
Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 598 - 2024-04-18
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant, a young Iranian citizen, was refused a study permit to attend Grade 12 at a private Ontario high school. [...] [6] As briefly outlined above, IRCC refused the Applicant’s study permit application. [...] That consideration, on its own, is sufficient to justify the Officer’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s application for a study permit.
-
14.
Tan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 600 - 2024-04-18
Federal Court DecisionsApplicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent [...] [1] In 2002, the Applicant, Ms. Nan Tan, arrived in Canada as a temporary resident to study. [...] On judicial review, the Court is not permitted to re-weigh the evidence or substitute its own assessment to the administrative decision maker’s assessment (Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31 at para 55).
-
15.
Roodafshani v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2024 FC 595 - 2024-04-16
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant, Mahmoodreza Roodafshani, seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer refusing his study permit application pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”). [...] [7] Furthermore, the officer did not err by finding that the Applicant’s proposed course of study did not seem reasonable in light of his previous work and educational experience. [...] Moreover, the Applicant’s job offer letter does not make the proposed study a precondition for the promotion, nor explain why the proposed study is necessary for the position (see e.g., Rajabi at para 13).
-
16.
Jahanian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 581 - 2024-04-12
Federal Court DecisionsSince Mr. Haghtalab’s work permit application was entirely dependent on the success of Ms. Jahanian’s study permit application, their grounds for judicial review focused on the decision rejecting the study permit application. [...] [8] In support of the study permit application, the applicants provided documentation to establish their savings and other assets, all with a view to demonstrating that they have sufficient financial resources to cover the cost of the degree and their stay in Canada. [...] [13] The officer’s concerns about available financial resources were not the only reason given for rejecting the study permit application.
-
17.
Nazari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 546 - 2024-04-09
Federal Court Decisions[5] On July 20, 2022, the Principal Applicant applied for a Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA] exempt work permit under the C-11 category of the International Mobility Program [a C-11 work permit]. [...] Those cases relate to a denied study permit application and permanent resident visa, respectively. [...] Here, the Applicant’s application for a C-11 work permit was denied pursuant to paragraph 205(a) of the Regulations, which imposes different requirements than applications for study permits and permanent resident visas.
-
18.
Promotion In Motion Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC - 2024 FC 556 - 2024-04-09
Federal Court DecisionsSt. Lawrence Law Firm LLP, on behalf of their client Hershey, retained Ms. Brigley and Narrative Research to implement a modified version of the survey questionnaires used in the Corbin SWISSKISS & Design Study and the Bourque SWISSKISS Study. [...] [49] Based on these results, the Brigley SWISSKISS Study concluded that: [...] Section 25 merely permits registration of a trademark that is effective only to prevent its use by others outside the territorial area of which the mark is descriptive.
-
19.
Raoufi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 550 - 2024-04-09
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, her application for a study permit was refused by a visa officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada because the officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. [...] [5] As noted above, the officer refused the study permit application because the officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. [...] [12] In sum, the officer provided four reasons for rejecting the study permit application.
-
20.
Najaran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 541 - 2024-04-08
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicants are Davoud Najaran and his spouse. Mr. Najaran applied for a study permit to study for a Master of Analytics at Northeastern University in Canada. [...] His wife applied for an accompanying spousal work permit based on Mr. Najaran obtaining a Canadian study permit. [...] Visa officers are responsible for considering a high volume of study permit applications.
-
21.
Salamat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 545 - 2024-04-08
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Applicant, Toofan Salamat, applied for a study permit to pursue a Master of Engineering at Concordia University. [...] Visa officers are responsible for considering a high volume of study permit applications. [...] [13] Second, the Applicant argues that the Ottawa Case Processing Centre did not have the expertise to evaluate this study-permit and it should have been done by the officers at the visa post in Ankara.
-
22.
Moradi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 522 - 2024-04-04
Federal Court Decisions[10] In her written submissions, the Applicant asserts that the study permit subject to this judicial review is the same study permit application that was refused on April 20, 2022. [...] [13] Second, the application number for the first study permit application is different from the application number for the second study permit application, which further serves to rebut the Applicant’s claim that this current matter under review is the same study permit application. [...] This can also be confirmed by looking at the study permit application itself.
-
23.
Tabatabaei v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 521 - 2024-04-04
Federal Court Decisions[12] The Applicant’s study permit application was refused because the Officer was not satisfied, pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay. [...] The Applicant’s judicial review application is granted. 3. The August 17, 2022 decision of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada refusing the Applicant’s application for a study permit is set aside. [...] Study permits Permis d’études 216 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an officer shall issue a study permit to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national
-
24.
Hekmatian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 515 - 2024-04-03
Federal Court DecisionsHer application complied with the statutory requirements, and the officer ought to have granted her application for a study permit. [...] The officer expressed concerns that the justification and study plan in the Applicant’s current study permit application were inconsistent with two prior, refused study permit applications. [...] • a)Was the Decision rejecting the study permit application reasonable?
-
25.
Trotman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 510 - 2024-04-03
Federal Court Decisions[24] Similarly, the Officer gave no explanation as to why the Barbados Today article, which reported on a study about the cost of systemic discrimination against the LGBTQI+ community in the Caribbean, contained bias. [...] Was the Officer concerned about the bias within the study itself or was the Officer of the view that the newspaper article’s summary of the report was biased? [...] See for example, the decisions of Fosu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 90 F.T.R. 182, Husseini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 20 Imm. L.R. (3d) 92 (F.C.T.D.), dealing with the issue of claimants not being permitted to display their religious beliefs in public.