Federal Court Rejects Study Permit Application Refusal Review
📌 In brief
The Federal Court dismissed a claimant's application for judicial review of the refusal of her study permit application. The court found that the claimant was ineligible to restore her status as a student because she was outside the 90-day window for restoration and was trying to change from one type of temporary resident status to another.
⚖️ Legal holding
A foreign national cannot apply to restore their status from one type of temporary resident status to another if they are outside the 90-day window for restoration.
📖 What the law says
This rule explains that a visitor, worker, or student can apply to restore their temporary resident status if they do so within 90 days of losing it, provided they meet the original requirements for their stay, have followed other conditions, and are not subject to certain declarations. However, a student who has not met a specific condition cannot have their status restored.
This rule sets out general conditions for all temporary residents, including the requirement to leave Canada by the end of their authorized stay, and restrictions on working or studying unless specifically authorized.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a lawyer.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the refusal of her study permit application.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the refusal of her study permit application, holding that the claimant was ineligible to restore her status as a student due to being outside the 90-day window for restoration and attempting to change from one type of temporary resident status to another.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Date: 20260206 Docket: IMM-17577-24 Citation: 2026 FC 173 Toronto, Ontario, February 6, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND
REASONS [ 1 ] The Applicant is a 33-year-old citizen of India, who came to Canada as a student on a study permit that was valid from July 2, 2022, to January 15, 2023. In January 2023, the Applicant successfully applied for a Post-Graduation Work Permit [PGWP], which was valid from March 19, 2023, to March 19, 2024. [ 2 ] On March 19, 2024, the Applicant applied for an extension of her PGWP on the advice of an immigration consultant. [ 3 ] On June 14, 2024, after changing immigration consultants, the Applicant applied for a study permit. On the IMM5709 form “Application to Change Conditions, Extend My Stay or Remain in Canada as a Student” , the Applicant indicated that she was applying to, among other things, restore her status as a student. [ 4 ] On June 19, 2024, the Applicant contacted [NAME] [[NAME]]’s helpline to withdraw her PGWP extension application, which was ultimately withdrawn. In that regard, [NAME] issued two letters to the Applicant confirming the withdrawal — one dated June 30, 2024, and one dated September 9, 2024. The Applicant asserts that she did not receive the June 30, 2024 letter at the relevant time. [ 5 ] By letter dated September 9, 2024, the Applicant’s study permit application was refused by an officer from [NAME]’s [COMPANY] [Officer]. The letter went on to state: [X] You are a person in Canada without temporary resident status who is not eligible for restoration under Section 182 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations . [X] You are a person in Canada without legal status and as such are required to leave Canada immediately. If you do not leave Canada voluntarily, enforcement action may be taken against you. [ 6 ] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which constitute as part of the [NAME]’s reasons, detail the basis for the Officer’s decision and provide as follows: Client is applying for a restoration to study permit extension. The applicant held status on a work permit until 2024/03/19. The current application was made on 2024/06/14. As per the PDI, to be eligible as per R182 the client cannot restore for one type of temporary residence to another (i.e. from post-graduate work permit to student permit). There is currently no public policy to overcome this requirement either. As such I am unable to proceed with the application. Application refused. [ 7 ] On September 23, 2024, the Applicant requested reconsideration of her study permit refusal. On October 15, 2024, [NAME] refused her request. [ 8 ] The Applicant now seeks judicial review of the Officer’s decision refusing her application for a study permit. [ 9 ] Despite the Applicant’s framing of the issues, I find that the sole issue raised on this application is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable. When reviewing for reasonableness, the Court must determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, is transparent, intelligible and justified . 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 [see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85]. [ADDRESS] will intervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [see [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 418 at para 11]. [ 10 ] The Applicant asserts that the Officer erred in finding that the Applicant did not have legal status in Canada after her PGWP expired on March 19, 2024, as she had “maintained status” pursuant to subsection 183(5) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [ IRPR ] since she submitted her PGWP extension application prior to the expiry of her PGWP. The Applicant also asserts that this amounted to a denial of her legitimate expectation that she would be accorded maintained status and that her application would be assessed in accordance with established legal principles. While framed as a procedural fairness issue, I find that this properly goes to the reasonableness of the decision. That said, the Officer did not state in the GCMS notes that the Applicant did not have status after March 19, 2024, and the Respondent acknowledges that she had maintained status at the time the Officer rendered their decision. The statements by the Officer in the refusal letter regarding the Applicant’s lack of temporary resident status, her ineligibility for restoration and her obligation to leave Canada all relate to her status following the denial of her study permit application. [ 11 ] The Applicant takes issue with the Officer’s statement that the Applicant could not restore from one type of temporary status (PGWP) to another (study permit). The Applicant asserts that, under paragraph 215(1)(c) of the IRPR , a foreign national may apply for a study permit after entering Canada if they hold a work permit and, as such, this contradicts the Officer’s finding that she could not restore from one type of temporary status to another. There is no merit to this argument. The Applicant did not hold a valid work permit at the time of her study permit application. Rather, she was in maintained status. Moreover, under subsection 182(1) of the IRPR , the Applicant was not eligible to restore her former status as a student since she was clearly past the 90-day window for restoration of her study permit, which had expired on January 15, 2023, and subsection 182(1) does not permit restoration to a different temporary resident status. This is expressly confirmed in the Program Delivery Instructions referenced by the Officer in the GCMS notes, which state: Possible restoration scenarios Situations de rétablissement possibles A foreign national can only apply to restore their status and authorization to one they held immediately prior to the loss of status. For example, a temporary resident with authorization to study who is out of status cannot apply to restore their temporary resident status with authorization to work. They must apply to restore their temporary resident status with authorization to study. Un étranger peut seulement demander le rétablissement de son statut et de l’autorisation qu’il détenait immédiatement avant la perte de statut. Par exemple, un résident temporaire détenant un permis d’études qui perd son statut ne peut pas demander le rétablissement de son statut de résident temporaire en présentant une demande de permis de travail. Il doit demander le rétablissement de son statut de résident temporaire à titre d’étudiant. [Emphasis in original.] [En gras dans l’original.] [ 12 ] The Applicant also takes issue with the statement by the Officer that she was applying to restore her study permit, asserting instead that she was applying for a new study permit. However, this assertion is undermined by the Applicant’s application form, whereon she ticked the box indicating that she was seeking restoration of her status as a student. [ 13 ] The Applicant further asserts that she was unaware of the June 30, 2024 letter issued by [NAME] confirming the withdrawal of her PWGP extension application until after this application was commenced; and that the existence of two separate withdrawal letters creates confusion and undermines the integrity of the withdrawal process. There is no merit to this assertion as the withdrawal of the PGWP extension application had no bearing on the Officer’s decision in relation to the study permit. [ 14 ] As the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable, the application for judicial review shall be dismissed. [ 15 ] No question for certification was raised and I agree that none arises.
JUDGMENT in IMM-17577-24 THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises. “[NAME]” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-17577-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 5, 2026
JUDGMENT and reasons: [NAME]. DATED: FEBRUARY 6, 2026 APPEARANCES: [NAME] For The Applicant Alison Engel-Yan For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: [NAME] and Solicitors Mississauga, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The applicant was not eligible to restore her former status as a student because she was past the 90-day window.
- A foreign national can only apply to restore the status and authorization they held immediately before losing it.
- The withdrawal of the PGWP extension application did not affect the officer's decision on the study permit.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant argued that she had maintained status after her work permit expired, but this was not the officer's reason for refusal.
- The applicant's argument that she could apply for a study permit while holding a work permit was rejected because she did not hold a valid work permit.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the refusal of her study permit application.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant was eligible to restore her status as a student after her previous study permit expired.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant was not eligible to restore her status as a student because she was outside the 90-day window for restoration and was trying to change from one type of temporary resident status to another.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, sections 182(1) and 183(5) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant was outside the 90-day window for restoration and was trying to change from one type of temporary resident status to another.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they meet the eligibility criteria for restoring their status within the specified timeframe.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included the claimant's application forms and the Global Case Management System notes detailing the basis for the officer's decision.