Federal Court Rejects Study Permit Application for Insufficient Evidence

Date: 20260604 Docket: IMM-24499-24 Citation: 2026 FC 729 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, June 4, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The applicant, [NAME], is a citizen of Cameroon and is representing himself in an application for judicial review of a November 29, 2024, decision of an officer of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [Officer] refusing his application for a study permit [Decision]. The Officer indicated that he was not satisfied that [NAME] would leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for his stay in accordance with paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002‑227 [IRPR], given that he had limited employment opportunities in his country of residence and that his assets and financial situation were insufficient to support his purpose of travel. [ 2 ] [NAME] submits that the Decision is based on erroneous and unjustified reasons relating to the insufficiency of his financial resources to cover his studies and his stay in Canada. [NAME] states that he provided formal proof of his father’s financial capacity and alleges that the Officer failed to take these pieces of evidence into account. [ 3 ] The respondent, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister], submits that the Decision is reasonable in light of the record and that the Officer reasonably found that [NAME] had not submitted sufficient evidence to satisfy the Officer that he met the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and the IRPR. The Minister also argues that the applicant’s record does not comply with Rule 10(2)(a) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules , SOR/93‑22 [FC Immigration Rules] or with the Notice to the Parties and the Profession: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings, May 7, 2024 [Notice on the Use of [NAME]], which requires parties to make a declaration when artificial intelligence [[NAME]] is used in preparing for a proceeding. The Minister submits that the applicant’s reliance on several non‑existent decisions leaves little doubt that [NAME] was used in the preparation of his memorandum, without the notice required by this Court and without adequate verification of the work thus produced. The Minister therefore argues that this Court should reject the applicant’s record, which is an abuse of process, and dismiss this application for judicial review. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

II. Decision under judicial review [ 5 ] On November 29, 2024, the Officer refused [NAME]’s application for a study permit to complete a program in Accounting and Management Technology at Cégep de Chicoutimi. The period of study would have been from January 20, 2025, to June 24, 2028. [ 6 ] That Decision is the subject of this judicial review. The Officer refused the application following his review, finding that [NAME] did not meet the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR. The Officer specified that he was not satisfied that [NAME] would leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for his stay in accordance with paragraph 216(1)(b) of the IRPR, given that he had limited employment opportunities in his country of residence and that his assets and financial situation were insufficient to support his purpose of travel. [ 7 ] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes dated November 29, 2024, form part of the Decision: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , [1999] 2 SCR 817 at para 44. The relevant notes are reproduced below: I have reviewed the application. The applicant has limited employment possibilities in their country of residence. The applicant’s assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). Noted the funds provided by sponsor in the form of the bank statement, however, limited evidence of regular sufficient income to establish economic establishment through transaction history. Bank statement shows mostly cash deposits, therefore the source of funds is unknown/unclear. I noted the funds provided by the sponsor in the form of a micro‑financial institution statement, however, I have concerns with the accessibility of these funds. Not satisfied client can access or transfer these funds. 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.

III. Facts [ 8 ] In perfecting his application for leave and judicial review, [NAME] filed his applicant’s record on January 28, 2025, under Rule 10 of the FC Immigration Rules, to which he attached his applicant’s memorandum referencing a number of [ translation ] “recent decisions of the Federal Court of Canada that highlight the manner in which similar cases have been handled” : section 6 of the applicant’s memorandum. [ 9 ] The Minister filed a letter dated February 20, 2025, informing the Court that he would not file a memorandum at the leave stage and that he was reserving the right to file an affidavit and an additional memorandum in the event that the application for leave was granted by the Court. [ 10 ] On March 19, 2026, Madam Justice Azmudeh of the Federal Court issued an order granting the application for leave, directing that the application for judicial review be deemed to have been commenced, and scheduling the in‑person hearing of this application for judicial review before the Court on Monday, June 1, 2026, at 1 p.m. ET. [ 11 ] On April 29, 2026, after three unsuccessful attempts to contact [NAME] by email with no confirmation of receipt and one attempt by phone, which was unsuccessful because the number did not work, the Federal Court Registry sent a copy of Madam Justice Azmudeh’s order to [NAME] by regular mail. [ 12 ] On May 19, 2026, the Minister filed his respondent’s additional memorandum with proof of service on [NAME]. The Minister did not file an affidavit. In his additional memorandum, the Minister informed the Court, for the first time, that the applicant’s record references several non‑existent cases and that the applicant’s memorandum appears to have been drafted using [NAME], without the requisite notice. The Minister states that the applicant’s reliance on non‑existent decisions leaves little doubt that [NAME] was used. Yet, no declaration on the use of [NAME] has been served by [NAME], as required by the Notice on the Use of [NAME]. The Minister submits that, in this case, the Court should reject the applicant’s record and dismiss this application for judicial review on the ground of abuse of process, to protect the integrity of its process and maintain the proper administration of justice. [ 13 ] On June 1, 2026, [NAME] did not appear at the hearing of his application for judicial review, despite the Registry’s repeated attempts to contact him. I am satisfied that [NAME] was informed of the date and time of the hearing and, consequently, the hearing proceeded in his absence in accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98‑106 [FC Rules]. [NAME] did not notify the Court that he would not attend the hearing and took no steps with the Court to change the format of the hearing from in person to videoconference.

IV. Issues and standard of review [ 14 ] There are two issues: Should the applicant’s record be removed from the Court file? Is the Decision reasonable? [ 15 ] The standard applicable to the review of an administrative decision on its merits is reasonableness. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [ [NAME] ]. [ 16 ] For a decision to be considered unreasonable, the applicant must demonstrate that it contains a sufficiently central or significant shortcoming: [NAME] at para 100. [ADDRESS] should not interfere where there is a “minor misstep” : [NAME] at para 100; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2021 FCA 156 at para 36. [ADDRESS]’s intervention is not warranted by any and all errors or concerns. The alleged shortcomings must go beyond superficial representations on the merits of an impugned decision.

V. Analysis A. Applicable principles of immigration law [ 17 ] The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that non‑citizens do not have an unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) ; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2005 SCC 51 at para 46, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 711 at 733. B. Should the applicant’s record be removed from the Court file? [ 18 ] I note that all the decisions cited by [NAME] in sections 6.1 and 6.2 of his applicant’s memorandum are non‑existent, as illustrated by the Minister’s list, which I am reproducing below. In any case, the styles of cause corresponding to the neutral citations submitted by [NAME] do not address concepts relevant to his case and do not [ translation ] “highlight the manner in which similar files have been handled” . [ translation ] - R. [c.] Canada (Ministre de l’Immigration) , 2023 FC 113 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2023 FC 113, and it concerns a motion for a stay challenging a deferral request; - [NAME] v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2022 FC 623 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 623, and it concerns a decision of the Refugee Protection [ sic ] Division (RAD); - [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME]) , 2022 FC 404 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME]‑[NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 404, and it concerns a decision of the RAD; - [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 230 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 230, and it concerns a decision of the RAD; - [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 801 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 801, and it concerns a decision of the RAD; - R. v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2021 FC 870 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] c. Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile) , 2021 CF 870, and it concerns a motion for a stay challenging a deferral request; - [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 411 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 411, and it concerns a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD); - [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 204 does not exist . Rather, the proper citation for the style of cause [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) is 2020 FC 93, and it concerns a decision of the RAD; - [NAME] v. Canada (Minister of immigration) , 2019 FC 1089 does not exist . Rather, the style of cause for this citation is [NAME] v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2019 FC 1089, and it concerns a motion for a stay challenging a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application; and - [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME]) , 2019 FC 707 does not exist . Rather, the correct citation for the style of cause [NAME] v. Canada ([NAME]) is 2012 FC 385, and it concerns a decision of the RPD. Respondent’s additional memorandum at paragraph 9 [ 19 ] [NAME] did not appear before the Court at the hearing set by order of the Court. There is no explanation from [NAME] anywhere in the record regarding how these fictitious citations came to be. [NAME] has produced no evidence or affidavit in support of his application to explain how these inaccuracies in the citations occurred, and he has provided no indication whatsoever as to whether [NAME] was indeed used in the drafting of his memorandum attached to his applicant’s record filed with the Court. [ 20 ] With no evidence to the contrary and no explanation from [NAME], I note that all the Federal Court decisions cited in [NAME]’s applicant’s record are probably “[NAME] hallucinations” because they are non‑existent Federal Court decisions, as demonstrated by the Minister in paragraph 9 of his additional memorandum, which I have reproduced above. [ 21 ] I also note that [NAME] did not comply with the Notice on the Use of [NAME], which requires the parties to inform the Court and each other if any documents submitted for litigation include content created or generated by [NAME], as he did not inform the Minister or the Court of such use and the record makes no mention of [NAME]. [ 22 ] I agree with the Minister that the undeclared use of [NAME] in court documents filed with the Federal Court is not a harmless practice and constitutes a serious matter, particularly when the documents reference non‑existent or [ translation ] “imaginary” sources. In the Federal Court, the removal of abusive court documents from the Court file is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Court’s process and the administration of justice. For example, Justice Fothergill of the Federal Court previously granted a motion brought by an applicant under Rule 74 of the FC Rules to have the respondent’s motion record removed from the Court file based on the undeclared use of [NAME]. He found that removing the document from the Court file was a “very modest sanction” and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $500: [COMPANY] v [NAME] , 2025 FC 1233. [ 23 ] As Justice David Masuhara of the Supreme Court of British Columbia observed in [NAME] v [NAME] , 2024 BCSC 285 [ [NAME] ], “[c]iting fake cases in court filings and other materials handed up to the court is an abuse of process and is tantamount to making a false statement to the court. Unchecked, it can lead to a miscarriage of justice” : [NAME] at para 29. Rule 74 of the FC Rules provides that the Court may, at any time, order that a document be removed from the Court file if the document is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, if all interested parties have been given an opportunity to make submissions. In this case, the Court gave [NAME] the opportunity to make submissions at his hearing, but he did not appear. [ 24 ] The Federal Court recently recognized that self‑represented litigants have a duty to educate themselves and are expected to (i) review the Court’s practice directions, including the Notice on the Use of [NAME], and (ii) verify any [NAME]‑generated information in court documents before they are filed, failing which they may face sanctions for non-compliance: [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2026 FC 82 at para 31. [ 25 ] The Notice on the Use of [NAME] applies to all materials that are submitted to the Court and prepared for the purpose of litigation. In this case, the court document filed by [NAME] is the applicant’s record. [ 26 ] Regardless of whether or not [NAME] used [NAME] in preparing his applicant’s record, the fact remains that his memorandum contains several fictitious or non‑existent cases (indeed, all of the decisions cited by [NAME] in his memorandum are fictitious or non‑existent), to an extent that decisively affects the reliability and accuracy of his arguments, thereby requiring that the applicant’s record be removed from the Court file. [ 27 ] I find that the applicant’s record constitutes an abusive pleading that warrants its removal from the Court file, given the need to preserve the integrity of the Court’s process and the administration of justice. [ 28 ] An application for judicial review may be dismissed because the applicant failed to file an applicant’s record. [ 29 ] After careful consideration, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review because the applicant’s record is an abusive pleading that will be removed from the Court file for undeclared use of [NAME] and non‑existent case law, and because [NAME] did not appear at the hearing. In the words of Justice Stratas of the Federal Court of Appeal, the Court has “plenary jurisdiction to regulate its proceedings and restrain any abuses of its procedures” : [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 FCA 219 at para 4, citing Canada (National Revenue) v [COMPANY] , 2013 FCA 50 at paras 33–36 [ RBC ]. Although there is no specific rule in Part 5 – Applications of the FC Rules equivalent to Rule 221(1)(f) for having a pleading that is otherwise an abuse of process struck out, Rule 74—in combination with the Federal Court’s inherent power to redress abuses of process—allows this Court to dismiss an application for judicial review that is an abuse of process. In my view, the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in RBC is clear: [36] In my view, the Federal Courts’ power to investigate, detect and, if necessary, redress abuses of its own processes is a plenary power that exists outside of any statutory grant, an “immanent attribute” part of its “essential character” as a court, just like the provincial superior courts with inherent jurisdiction: see MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Simpson , [1995] 4 S.C.R. 725 at paragraph 30. The Federal Courts’ power to control the integrity of its own processes is part of its core function, essential for the due administration of justice, the preservation of the rule of law and the maintenance of a proper balance of power among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government. Without that power, any court—even a court under section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867—is emasculated, and is not really a court at all. See MacMillan Bloedel , supra at paragraphs 30–38, citing with approval [NAME], “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1983), 57 A.L.J. 449 at page 449 and [NAME], “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1970), 23 C.L.P. 23; and see also Crevier v. Quebec (A.G.) , [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220. RBC at paragraph 36 [ 30 ] The burden was on [NAME], who is challenging the Decision on judicial review, to show that it is unreasonable: [NAME] at para 100. Without evidence or arguments before the Court, [NAME] cannot meet his burden of demonstrating that the Decision is unreasonable. [ 31 ] Moreover, given that [NAME] did not respond to the Federal Court Registry’s numerous attempts to contact him and that he did not appear at the hearing, the Court notes that it is unlikely that [NAME] still intends to pursue the application for judicial review of the Decision. This is particularly so given that the period of study referred to in [NAME]’s application was set to begin on January 20, 2025. This does not preclude [NAME] from applying again for a study permit if he still intends to come to Canada to study. C. Is the Decision reasonable? [ 32 ] [NAME]’s failure to submit a proper applicant’s record, the Court nevertheless considered the Decision under judicial review, the certified tribunal record, and the respondent’s additional memorandum. The officer’s reasoning is based on the lack of evidence and documents in support of [NAME]’s application. I agree with the Minister, who points out that [NAME] provided no evidence or information regarding his father’s personal and business income, his father’s financial obligations, or the existence or absence of debts on the properties. Furthermore, some of the documents provided by [NAME] allegedly concern businesses owned with other partners. I am of the opinion that there are no sufficiently serious or gross shortcomings in the Decision such that it fails to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency: [NAME] at para 100.

VI. Conclusion [ 33 ] For the above reasons, this application for judicial review must be dismissed. [ 34 ] The parties did not suggest any serious questions of general importance for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA. I agree that none arises in this case.

JUDGMENT in IMM-24499-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is as follows: The respondent’s application under Rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98‑106 is allowed. The applicant’s record filed and served on January 28, 2026, is struck from the Court file. The application for judicial review is dismissed. No serious question of general importance is certified. “[NAME]” Judge Certified true translation [NAME], Senior Jurilinguist FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-24499-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 1, 2026

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT BY: [NAME] J DATED: JUNE 4, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For the respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME]‑JÉRÔME, QUEBEC For the applicant (self‑represented) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC For the respondent