Federal Court Grants Judicial Review for Unreasonable Study Permit Decisions

Date: 20260401 Docket: IMM-17687-24 Citation: 2026 FC 428 Toronto, Ontario, April 1, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants seek judicial review of the decisions refusing study permit applications for the two minor Applicants, and the accompanying temporary resident visa application made by their mother, the [NAME]. [ 2 ] A visa officer (Officer) refused the study permit applications based on concerns about the study plan which supported them as well as concerns about the minor Applicants’ motivations to return to Iran, their country of citizenship. The [NAME]’s application was refused based on the refusal of the minor Applicants’ applications. [ 3 ] For the reasons that follow, the decisions are unreasonable due to their lack of responsiveness to the evidence and submissions provided by the Applicants. The application for judicial review is therefore granted.

II. Background [ 4 ] The minor Applicants applied for study permits after being accepted to study in the Toronto District School Board. Their mother applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to accompany them to Canada and to assist them to adjust to life in Canada. [ 5 ] The applications were initially refused on January 9, 2024, then re-opened for redetermination after judicial review proceedings were commenced in this Court. After the Applicants provided updated documents and information, the applications were refused again on August 7, 2024. [ 6 ] The refusal of the study permit applications was based on two grounds. First, the Officer found that the study plans that supported the applications contained “insufficient explanation or details” regarding how their Canadian studies would provide a benefit to them at this stage in their lives. Second, the Officer found that the minor Applicants’ family ties in Iran were not “sufficiently strong” to motivate them to return to Iran. [ 7 ] As noted above, the [NAME]’s application was refused based on the refusal of her children’s study permit applications. [ 8 ] Pursuant to the Order of [NAME] dated January 21, 2026, I have determined this matter based on the parties’ written submissions only.

III. Issue [ 9 ] The sole issue is whether the Officer’s decision is reasonable pursuant to the relevant legal and factual constraints described in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ], affirmed in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21. A decision’s level of responsiveness to the evidence and submissions provided to the decision maker is a key measurement of a reasonable decision ( [NAME] , at paras 125-128).

IV. Analysis [ 10 ] The Officer’s decision is unreasonable because it was not responsive to the minor Applicants’ study plans or their family ties to Iran. A. Lack of responsiveness to the Applicants’ study plans [ 11 ] The Officer’s concerns with the Applicants’ study plans were described as follows: Insufficient explanation or details have been given on how the proposed studies in Canada will [be] of benefit at this stage in the PA’s life. Study plan refers to general advantageous comments regarding the value of education in Canada and makes sweeping statements on how the education will improve the applicant’s situation in Iran. [ 12 ] By contrast, the Applicants’ study plans contained the following information which addressed the Officer’s concerns: - Six bullet points describing their attraction to Canadian studies, such as the affordability of education, superior post-secondary education in data science, and the utility of a Canadian education in English; - A description of the minor Applicants’ intentions to pursue post-secondary education and training as a nurse and a doctor in Canada, and their desire to enter the Canadian education system and Canadian society early in order to minimize the risk of culture shock and to use their high school background and knowledge so that they “will not have to spend time and energy on matters like improving [their English] language skills or securing accommodation” ; - A detailed description of poor-quality high schools and curriculum in Iran, and the weak post-secondary digital facilities and technology in Iran. [ 13 ] The Officer’s concerns do not correspond with the information in the Applicants’ study plans, and the Officer’s failure to engage with the Applicants’ detailed evidence and submissions renders the decision unreasonable ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1761 at paras 14-15). B. Lack of responsiveness to the Applicant’s evidence of family ties [ 14 ] The Officer expressed a concern that the Applicants’ family ties to Iran were not strong enough to motivate their return. The Officer stated: I am not satisfied with the applicant’s stated family ties as sufficiently strong (or documented) to warrant a return to Iran. I note that the intended travel to Canada involves the applicant’s immediate family members (parent + sibling), thus weakening the applicant’s ties to Iran as well as diminishing their motivation to return. [ 15 ] The Officer failed to note the Applicants’ evidence that their father and brother would remain in Iran. The Officer also failed to note evidence that the [NAME] would be in Canada temporarily to assist the minor Applicants in their adjustment to Canada, and that she would then return to employment in Iran. The Officer’s failure to account for this evidence, which contradicted the conclusion that the minor Applicants would not be motivated to return to Iran due to their family ties, renders the decision unreasonable ( [NAME] , at para 126).

V. Conclusion [ 16 ] The Officer’s findings that led to the refusal of the applications did not engage with the evidence and submissions provided by the minor Applicants, rendering the refusal of the study permits unreasonable. Because the refusal of the [NAME]’s temporary resident visa was based on these unreasonable refusals, the decision rendered on the [NAME]’s application is also unreasonable.

JUDGMENT in IMM-17687-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted, the decisions made on the Applicants’ student and temporary resident visa applications are set aside, and the matters are remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification and no order regarding costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-17687-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CONSIDERED IN WRITING AT TORONTO, ONTARIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT’S

ORDER DATED JANUARY 21, 2026

JUDGMENT AND

REASONS: [NAME] J. DATED: ApRIL 1, 2026 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : [NAME] For The ApplicantS [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent