Officer’s reasoning exhibits a “foray into career counselling” that lacks reasonableness

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Another winning Federal Court decision for Samin Mortazavi

The Applicant in this case was a 40-year-old citizen of Iran. She is married and had no dependents. Her husband, parents, and brother are in Iran, and she has no family in Canada. At the time of making the visa application she was residing in Spain. At that time, she was married and had no dependents. Her husband, parents, and brother were in Iran, and she had no family in Canada. She is currently residing in Spain. Since 2019, the Applicant has worked as a research consultant at Nedaye Nasim-e-Shomal Company in Tehran, where she coordinates and provides expertise on executive projects to convert waste into usable energy. She had continued working here remotely while in Spain.

[20] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s decision is unreasonable because it lacks a rational chain of analysis based on the facts and evidence. The Officer’s characterization of the NYIT program as being a lower level of education than the Applicant’s previous degree disregards her purpose for pursuing the program, which is to further her career in energy management. The Applicant submits that this basis for refusal runs counter to this Court’s decision in Monteza v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 530 at para 13 (“Monteza”). Rather than properly assessing the evidence showing that the program is a logical progression in the Applicant’s career and that she is a bona fide student, the Officer assumed the role of career advisor, which this Court has found unreasonable (Adom v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 26 at paras 16-17) (“Adom”).

In para 22 the judge wrote, the Officer’s decision is unreasonable because it bases its conclusion on an insignificant consideration, contrary to jurisprudence, and does so in favour of clear evidence pointing to the contrary. The Officer’s assessment of the evidence contains a significant gap in reasoning, and is unjustified in light of the evidentiary and legal constraints (Vavilov at para 105). Even in cases with brief or no reasons for a decision, the decision must be reviewed as a whole to ensure that it is transparent, intelligible and justified (Vavilov at para 15). It is not this Court’s role to reweigh or reassess the evidence before the Officer, but a reasonable decision must still be justified in light of the evidentiary record (Vavilov at paras 125-126).

[30] The Officer’s refusal of the Applicant’s study permit application is unreasonable because it does not involve a rational line of analysis that is justified on the basis of the evidence. The decision specifically fails to account for the evidence showing the Applicant’s purpose for pursuing an additional degree to obtain practical skills in her field. This application for judicial review is granted. No questions for certification were raised, and I agree that none arise.

The judge concluded saying:

[30] The Officer’s refusal of the Applicant’s study permit application is unreasonable because it does not involve a rational line of analysis that is justified on the basis of the evidence. The decision specifically fails to account for the evidence showing the Applicant’s purpose for pursuing an additional degree to obtain practical skills in her field. This application for judicial review is granted. No questions for certification were raised, and I agree that none arise.

Visit Samin Mortazavi’s page to learn more.