Granting judgment from the bench on Nov. 4, 2024, to the judicial review applicant, Vania Safaie, Federal Court Justice Angus Grant ordered that a different officer within the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) reconsider, on an “expedited basis,” the now 17-year-old youth’s rejected application for a permit to study here: Safaie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1761.
Safaie sought judicial review for her second unsuccessful attempt to get a study permit from IRCC, following a previous judicial review that was discontinued when the department agreed to reconsider its initial refusal of a permit but then doubled down.
The reasons of the IRCC officer who reconsidered her case, but then rejected her application on the basis that she had not sufficiently explained how the proposed studies in Canada would benefit her, “were not responsive to the application she submitted,” concluded Justice Grant, a former senior immigration and refugee lawyer and ex-assistant deputy chair of the Refugee Appeal Division at the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Safaie explained in her application for a study permit that she wants to complete high school in Canada (where she has been accepted by a Toronto high school) in order to facilitate her eventual acceptance into the music program at Wilfred Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont.
“My dream is to become a musician and tour around the world; I want to share my talent with the world without being judged about my background,” she wrote in her application.
“As a woman musician, in my home country, there are limits on how far I can take my musician career,” she said. “Therefore, I will not have a fair opportunity to grow and follow my passion. Being granted a study permit to study in Canada not only greatly provides me the opportunity to reach my goal, but it will also give me a chance to share my talent with others.”
The officer who reconsidered Safaie’s rejected application explained it was being refused again because “the purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay, given the details you have provided in your application.”
“Applicant is a minor, 16 years old, applying to come to Canada to study Grade 11,” the immigration officer said in notes that form part of the reasons for the refusal.
“Insufficient explanation or details have been given on how the proposed studies in Canada will be of benefit at this stage” in her life, the officer reasoned. “Study plan refers to general advantageous comments regarding the value of international education in Canada and makes sweeping statements on how the education will improve the applicant’s situation in Iran. I am not satisfied the motivation to pursue this particular program, at this point in time in Canada, is reasonable considering the reasons mentioned above.”
Justice Grant found that “in rejecting Ms. Safaie’s application, the officer did not refer to the specific objectives she articulated for wanting to study in Canada. Indeed, there is no indication in their reasons that the officer took any consideration of the rationale underlying Ms. Safaie’s study permit application. Contrary to the officer’s findings, this rationale was specifically set out in the applicant’s study plan statement, namely that her studies in Canada would facilitate a career in music that was simply unavailable to her in Iran. Nowhere in the officer’s reasons is there any indication that they engaged with this stated purpose.”
Justice Grant said that instead the officer “merely provided the rather generic finding” that the study plan refers to general advantageous comments regarding the value of international education in Canada.
“I do not find this to be an accurate summary of the applicant’s plan,” the judge remarked. “She provided a specific rationale for wanting to study in Canada, a clear explanation as to why she cannot pursue this same aspiration in Iran, and a specific program that she wishes to pursue in the future.”
The judge noted it is settled law in Federal Court that exhaustive reasons need not be provided in the study permit context.
However, study permit decisions must still be “responsive to the factual matrix put before visa officers”: Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 77.
“Put another way, an officer’s reasons need not be lengthy, but they must be based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, and be justified in relation to the facts and the law that constrain the decision-maker,” Justice Grant said. “The officer’s reasons in this matter failed to display these characteristics.”
Anna Davtyan, EME Professional Corporation
“I would say that this case is her life,” commented Davtyan when asked about what the decision means for her client. “The decision brings the applicant immense hope, supporting her ambition to develop her talent and further her career without fearing legal or social consequences or persecution,” she replied. “It also offers her opportunities that comply with her passion and goals in ways that her home country currently restricts.”
She added that the case also highlights the importance of emphasizing clients’ personal and professional aspirations and recognizing their current restrictions in their home countries.
“Immigration lawyers should focus on the unique circumstances applicants may face that make studying abroad often crucial,” Davtyan advised. “Supporting documentation is essential and shows the applicant's challenges influencing the decision.”
She suggested “this decision could serve as a message that [immigration] officers should consider not only academic intentions but also the broader social context when assessing study permit applications, especially for applicants from restrictive regimes. It encourages officers to acknowledge how core Canadian values, such as freedom of expression, play a significant role in providing applicants with opportunities unavailable in their home countries. Legally, this decision could reinforce that study permit applications must be assessed on a holistic basis, with particular attention to social, cultural and professional barriers faced by the applicant in their home country.”
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada, please contact Cristin Schmitz at cristin.schmitz@lexisnexis.ca or call 613-820-2794.