Typically, to be eligible for a research allow, a potential scholar should:
- current a letter of acceptance from the tutorial establishment the place she intends to review. This faculty have to be a Designated Studying Establishment;
- be capable to each pay the schooling charges of this system in addition to be capable to financially assist themselves and any accompanying monetary members. Relying on the individual’s nation of origin, they could be required to take out a GIC with a chosen Canadian financial institution;
- be capable to cowl the price of transportation to and from Canada;
- move any medical examinations;
- probably present proof of medical insurance;
- reveal that they’re a bona fide scholar and that they are going to depart Canada on the finish of the interval licensed by their keep.
Not each scholar wants a research allow. Exempt college students embody:
- individuals searching for to review for a short-term program (until they want to work on campus).
- minor college students in Canada.
Approval Fee Statistics
The next charts have been obtained by way of Entry to Info Act requests.
Right here is the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) approval charge for research allow purposes based mostly on sure nations of origin from 2009 – 2013.
Here’s a breakdown of approvals for India, China, the Philippines, and Vietnam damaged down by degree of research, gender, age, and whether or not the individual utilized on-line or in individual.
Right here is the month-to-month 2019-2020 (Oct) approval statistics based mostly on nation and proposed program of research.
Examine Allow Approval by Nation
Approval Charges
Right here is the breakdown of approvals for 2016 – 2020 by nation.
Examine Allow Approval Fee by Age
Right here is the variety of college students on the post-secondary degree based mostly on nation of nationality.
As nicely, listed here are two PDFs which present the variety of research allow purposes obtained based mostly on faculty in addition to the variety of approvals.
Examine Allow Approval
Examine Allow Receipt
Lastly, the variety of research permits issued based mostly on port of entry, and refused based mostly on visa workplace.
Examine allow approval charges based mostly on faculty, 2019-2023.
When to Apply
Most individuals have to use for research permits exterior of Canada. There are exceptions to this, nonetheless, together with those that already maintain research permits, those that maintain work permits, relations of labor allow holders, and non permanent residents who has accomplished a course or program of research that could be a prerequisite to their enrolling at a chosen studying establishment. Pursuant to the Federal Court docket of Canada determination in Virk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), it isn’t obligatory that the prerequisite have been accomplished in Canada.
Significant Engagement with Utility
As with all purposes visa officers are required to meaningfully interact with proof. In Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 77, affirmed in Obison v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1083, Justice Diner acknowledged:
…I admire that the context of a visa workplace, with immense pressures to provide a big quantity of selections on daily basis, don’t enable for in depth causes. The brevity of the Resolution, nonetheless, is just not what makes this Resolution unreasonable. Reasonably, it’s its lack of responsiveness to the proof. Vavilov, at paragraphs 127-128, describes the idea of responsiveness as follows:
The ideas of justification and transparency require that an administrative determination maker’s causes meaningfully account for the central points and issues raised by the events. The precept that the person or people affected by a choice ought to have the chance to current their case absolutely and pretty underlies the responsibility of procedural equity and is rooted in the proper to be heard: Baker, at para. 28. The idea of responsive causes is inherently certain up with this precept, as a result of causes are the first mechanism by which determination makers reveal that they’ve truly listened to the events.
[…]
Once more, whereas the truth of visa workplaces and the context wherein its officers work embody important operational pressures and useful resource constraints created by big volumes of purposes, this can’t exempt their selections from being conscious of the factual matrix put earlier than them. Failing to ask for fundamental responsiveness to the proof would deprive reasonableness evaluation of the sturdy high quality that Vavilov requires at paras 13, 67 and 72. “Reasonableness” is just not synonymous with “voluminous causes”: easy, concise justification will do.
As nicely, on the subject of frequent sense nation situations, the Federal Court docket has famous that officers can’t make abstract statements about nation situations with out participating with the proof. In Ghasemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1296, Justice Favel acknowledged:
The explanations seek advice from political and financial issues in Iran however the report doesn’t point out what these situations are. Whereas an Officer can depend on frequent sense and motive, they have to additionally interact with the proof earlier than them (Motala v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 726 at para 13). When an Officer bases their determination on a hunch or hypothesis, and it isn’t supported by the report or sufficiently articulated, that call can be unreasonable (Demyati v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 701 at paras 16, 20).
Bona Fides
Along with the the reason why any non permanent residency software is perhaps refused concerning whether or not the individual will depart Canada by the tip of their authorised keep, there are additionally causes for refusal which can be distinctive to review permits. Probably the most important is whether or not the person intends on being a bona fide scholar.
As Justice Roy famous in Demyati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 701, arbitrariness is the antithesis of reasonableness, and the prohibition towards arbitrariness is likely one of the ideas of basic justice which is on the coronary heart of part 7 of the Canadian Constitution of Rights and Freedoms. In setting apart the choice of a visa officer to refuse a research allow software, Justice Roy wrote:
Within the case at bar, it stays unclear why the visa officer concluded that an 18-year-old scholar, who advantages from a scholarship award from a acknowledged college, wouldn’t be a bona fide scholar who would keep on this nation past the expiration of the research allow. Moreover, there isn’t any motive that’s articulated to recommend that this applicant would run afoul of part 220.1 (1) of the Laws:
Situations — research allow holder
220.1 (1) The holder of a research allow in Canada is topic to the next situations:
(a) they shall enroll at a chosen studying establishment and stay enrolled at a chosen studying establishment till they full their research; and
(b) they shall actively pursue their course or program of research.
I’ve not discovered any justification on this report for such a conclusion. If there’s a justification, and there could be, it must be articulated for the choice to be affordable.
There are non-arbitary causes to refuse a research allow software. Examine allow purposes are sometimes refused if a visa officer determines that an applicant’s program of research doesn’t mirror a logical instructional alternative given an individual’s instructional background. Because the Federal Court docket famous in Perez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 1001, an applicant intending to review in areas completely disconnected from their background and expertise usually immediate visa officers to query the true intent behind a research allow software. Nevertheless, the place a person is finishing a program which enhances their background and expertise, then an software is more likely to be authorized.
As nicely, a number of Federal Court docket selections be aware that it’s unreasonable for officers to “foray into profession counselling.” In Nia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1648, the Court docket mentioned:
[28] Justice Fuhrer relied on Adom within the latest case of Seyedsalehi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1250 (““Seyedsalehi””), wherein a visa officer refused a research allow software as a result of the applicant’s pursuit of a school degree program was illogical given her earlier grasp’s diploma at a college (at para 16). Justice Fuhrer discovered:
[16] Additional, one is left questioning on what foundation the Officer finds learning a university degree program illogical within the face of a beforehand studied Masters degree program at college. For instance, does the Officer correlate the Masters program in Malaysia with an analogous Masters degree program in Canada? Does the Officer discover the illogicality rests in a college (no matter the place situated) versus a university program, i.e. is the latter thought-about to be a decrease degree or of lesser worth? Or is it the Applicant’s change of focus from psychology to early childhood training and care? Nowhere does the Officer present causes for the discovering of illogicality, particularly within the context of the Applicant’s motivation letter or research plan. In my opinion, the Officer’s discovering is tantamount to an unreasonable “foray into profession counselling” that lacks intelligibility and transparency: Adom v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 26 at para 17.
[Emphasis added]
[29] The identical reasoning might be utilized within the Applicant’s case. The Officer gives no substantive motive for deciding that the Applicant’s pursued program of research is illogical given her earlier training at the next degree, particularly within the context of her detailed proof explaining the aim of this pursuit. Reasonably than perform an intelligible, justified and clear evaluation of this proof, the Officer’s reasoning reveals a ““foray into profession counselling”” that lacks reasonableness (Seyedsalehi at para 16, citing Adom at para 17).
One other difficulty that research allow candidates face is satisfying visa officers that their proposed program of research is affordable in gentle of the prices. Nevertheless, because the Federal Court docket famous in Cervjakova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), a person’s determination to review in Canada might nicely entail monetary sacrifices for a research allow applicant and her household however that is usually what’s required to enhance one’s circumstances in life. The Federal Court docket lately affirmed this determination in Caianda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) and in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 199 when it acknowledged that there’s nothing improper with people placing a excessive worth on training.
One other helpful determination on research permits and objective of research, this time within the context of a minor, is Zibadel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 285.
Leaving Canada on the finish of Licensed Keep
In Demyati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Shore dominated that within the research allow context the presence of household in Canada couldn’t by itself be seen as a adverse consider a research allow software. That is partially as a result of it might recommend that the individual would have household assist. As nicely, in Ahadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 25, Justice Bell mentioned that refusing an applicant as a result of their dependent could be accompanying them quantities to a fettering of discretion.
As nicely, in Rahmati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 778, Madam Justice Walker dominated that if a visa officer determines that an applicant already has a brief resident visa, then a dedication that the person wouldn’t depart Canada on the finish of their research can be unreasonable if the officer doesn’t adequately take into account the truth that they have already got a brief resident visa.
As nicely, the Federal Court docket has repeatedly cautioned that an applicant’s lack of a dependent partner or kids, with none additional evaluation, shouldn’t essentially be thought-about a adverse consider assessing a research allow software. In Gilavan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1698, for instance, Justice Lafreniere famous that this may disqualify many, if not most, research allow candidates. As such, statements that an applicant is single, younger and cell with none additional rationalization can render a refusal unreasonable. This principal has been affirmed in many selections, together with Tehrani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigrations), 2023 FC 159, and Mouivand v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 573.
Credibility of Financial institution Statements
An argument that financial institution statements might have been “put collectively for the applying” is a credibility concern, because the Federal Court docket decided in Opakunbi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 943.
Returning to Work
Examine allow candidates will usually present letters from their employers confirming that they’ve permission to review in Canada and that they will resume working for the corporate as soon as the individual completes their research. The precise wording of those letters might be vital. In Bondarenko v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2021 FC 1106 Madam Justice MacDonald wrote:
The Applicant offered a letter from her employer which “strongly encourage[s]” her to take a course in Canada. Given the size of time the Applicant could be gone, it was affordable for the Officer to weigh the lack of the Applicant’s job as a adverse issue. A confirmed intention to contemplate re-hire is just not the identical as a promise to re-hire. Within the circumstances, it was affordable for the Officer to weigh this proof accordingly and conclude that the Applicant had weak monetary ties to Russia.
Grades
In Ahadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 25, Justice Bell wrote:
The Officer criticizes the Applicant for having failed to supply “latest training transcripts and diplomas”
in assist of her research allow request. With respect, this requirement imposed by the Officer appears slightly unintelligible given the variety of years which have handed because the Applicant accomplished her Bachelor’s program, the very fact she gives proof of acceptance into the Grasp’s program and the truth that she has been awarded a scholarship. I ask rhetorically, “what distinction does information of her marks make to any a part of the duty being undertaken by the Officer”?
The reply, in these circumstances, is, in my opinion, “none”
.
In Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 817, Madam Justice Elliot acknowledged:
When it comes to his prior educational efficiency, I do be aware that the Applicant obtained a number of poor grades in his Commerce diploma, starting from 40-59%. I agree with the Respondent that the jurisprudence is such that prior educational efficiency might be thought-about by an officer. Nevertheless, I’m not happy that on this occasion, it was executed with the care required as set out by Justice Norris in Patel.
Particularly, the Officer failed to attach the dots between the Applicant’s earlier educational historical past and the chance of success in his meant program of research. With out extra, this Court docket is just not ready to imagine that low grades in environmental research and statistical evaluation for instance, essentially signifies that the Applicant can’t excel in or full a university program in Worldwide Enterprise Administration. Justice Norris’ insightful evaluation on this level at paragraph 24 of Patel bears repeating: “one can full a program efficiently with out essentially excelling in it. And lots of the components that may decide educational success are dynamic, not static”.
Nevertheless, the Federal Court docket in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1745, additionally dominated that an applicant’s expertise and skills might be taken under consideration in assessing a research allow software, and that “Eager to undertake a course of research wherein one was unlikely to succeed might increase questions on whether or not an applicant is a bona fide scholar who will depart Canada by the tip of the interval licensed for his or her keep.”
As extra circumstances contain discussions of this difficulty making an attempt to determine an overarching precept can is getting sophisticated, as contradicting jurisprudence seems to be rising. Some circumstances, together with Bougrine v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 528 and Barot v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 284, give attention to whether or not the poor grades are in “core programs.”
Procedural Equity
The necessities of procedural equity are relaxed for research allow purposes. The onus is on candidates to show their case, and a visa officer is just not required to supply them with a “operating rating” of weaknesses or give discover of issues arising from legislative necessities. Nevertheless, there are circumstances the place a visa officer can be required to tell an applicant of issues with an software, even the place these issues come up from the applicant’s personal proof.
In Gu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 522, Justice Mainville put aside a refusal that was based mostly on an IRCC officer’s dedication that the applicant had not beforehand accomplished her research underneath a unique research allow. He wrote:
Within the CAIPS notes, the officer was involved that the Applicant didn’t set up she had accomplished any research in Canada underneath beforehand issued research permits or labored in Canada underneath the work permits issued to her. Certainly, if the Applicant was utilizing work or research permits for different functions, then this might actually give rise to a sound concern about her dedication to go away Canada by the tip of the brand new research allow she was requesting.
Nevertheless, these previous permits had been issued and renewed by the Canadian immigration authorities, and there’s no proof of non-compliance with the Act and the Laws on the a part of the Applicant. In circumstances the place previous compliance points have by no means been raised, I agree with the Applicant that if the officer had a priority about her compliance with previous permits, the officer ought to have knowledgeable her of the priority and offered her with a chance to reply. As famous by Justice Beaudry in Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration), supra at para. 35:
There isn’t any statutory proper to an interview (Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1998) 151 F.T.R. 1, 79 A.C.W.S. (3d) 140 at paragraph 28). Nevertheless, procedural equity requires that an Applicant be given the chance to reply to an officer’s issues underneath sure circumstances. When no extrinsic proof is relied on, it’s unclear when it’s essential to afford an Applicant an interview or a proper to reply. But, the jurisprudence means that there can be a proper to reply underneath sure circumstances.
[…]
This isn’t a case the place the officer had issues with the applying which was submitted. Reasonably the issues associated to previous permits and previous purposes. In gentle of those circumstances, the Applicant was entitled to be supplied with a chance to reply these issues which she couldn’t have moderately foreseen as being of curiosity to the officer. Because the software can be returned to a different Non-Immigrant Officer for redetermination, the Applicant is now nicely suggested that she should deal with these issues with this new officer.
Equally, in Popova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 326, Justice Diner put aside a research allow software the place in a earlier software IRCC solely raised issues about proof of funds. Within the subsequent software, IRCC decided that proof of funds was nice, however that this time the reasonableness of the proposed research was the issue. Justice Diner decided that on this case IRCC needed to notify the applicant of the brand new issues because the applicant had no approach of figuring out about them based mostly on the refusal causes for the earlier software, stating that ” an interview could also be required in scholar visa purposes the place the officer has fashioned an opinion that the applicant would haven’t any approach of anticipating.”
In Fard v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1403, Justice O’Reilly dominated that it was a breach of procedural equity for an officer to write down {that a} checking account had been “opened and inflated for the visa software” with out offering the applicant a chance to reply.
Lastly, pursuant to Justice Walker’s determination in Al Aridi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 381, the place an applicant gives enough proof, however an officer merely doesn’t consider that an applicant can be a bona fide scholar, then this can be a veiled credibility concern, and procedural equity requires that an officer present the applicant with a chance to reply. This determination was affirmed by Justice Diner in Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the place Justice Diner along with stating that an expression of concern over somebody’s bona fides was a credibility concern, additionally voiced issues over the reasonableness of refusing an software over the price of learning in Canada. Justice Diner wrote:
Returning to the 4 causes underlying the conclusion on this case (as listed in paragraph 14 above), first, there are clear potential employment advantages to worldwide research, together with on this case, the chance to enhance English language expertise.
As for the second motive cited by the Officer, lower-cost choices for English packages in India doesn’t make enrollment in a Canadian English program unreasonable. International college students worldwide usually pay substantial charges for the expertise of learning overseas, and all of the salutary results that it might have, together with receiving superior training, bettering language expertise, gaining worldwide views, being immersed in international cultures, and bettering profession prospects.
Relating to the third floor cited within the Resolution, Mr. Patel’s educational and employment historical past is within the subject of enterprise. Subsequently, I discover nothing inherently unreasonable about pursuing additional research in his subject.
Lastly, on the fourth difficulty cited, the Officer didn’t broaden in any way – or justify in any approach – what the “private circumstances” is perhaps, or why these would possibly render his attendance on the college “unreasonable.”
Minor Youngsters
