Application for a Canadian study permit does not require proof of actual payment of all or a portion of the tuition, a Federal Court in Canada ruled Monday, 6th February 2023, in a case between Mahyar Haji Tehrani and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The case and the judgement has far reaching implications for students in Nigeria and beyond who has been required by the prevailing norm to pay for their respective tuitions in full most times before they commence their study permit applications.
- Also read these;
- Apply Now: Nigeria’s National Agency for the Great Green Wall needs 1000 youth volunteers
- ELECTION: How to check your polling unit, code online
CIC News reported that ruling removes a barrier to access for foreign nationals looking to study in Canada that may not be able to pay all or part of their tuition at the time they submit their study permit application.
It went on to say that as long as an applicant is able to demonstrate that they have the requisite financial resources to pay for tuition and other expenses when required, they are invited to apply for a study permit and will not be penalized for unpaid tuition during the application submission stage.
Mahyar Haji Tehrani, a citizen of Iran had applied to and was accepted into Northeastern University’s College of Professional Studies, Master of Science in Project Management program in Toronto, Ontario.
He then applied for a study permit to allow him to enter Canada to pursue those studies.
In a letter dated January 9, 2022, Mahyar was informed that his study permit application was refused by a visa officer.
The reason for the refusal was that the Officer was not satisfied, pursuant to s 216(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRP Regulations], that the he would leave Canada at the end of a period authorized for his stay.
This determination was stated by the Officer to be based on the Mahyar’s family ties in Canada and in his country of residence as well as the purpose of his visit.
Mahyar therefore brought an application for leave and judicial review of that decision, and the court in its judgment granted the judicial review requested of it.
In reaching the judgement, Judge Cecily Y. Strickland noted that the IRP Regulations only requires that an Applicant establish that they have been accepted to undertake a program of study at a designated learning institution – it does not require proof that any or all tuition has been paid. Similarly, s 219(1) states that a study permit shall not be issued to a foreign national unless they have written documentation from the designated learning institution where they intend to study that states that they have been accepted to study – but the provision is silent as to the payment of all or any portion of their tuition. Section 220 is concerned student financial resources, stating:
220 An officer shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national, other than one described in paragraph 215(1)(d) or (e), unless they have sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to
(a) pay the tuition fees for the course or program of studies that they intend to pursue;
(b) maintain themself and any family members who are accompanying them during their proposed period of study; and
(c) pay the costs of transporting themself and the family members referred to in paragraph (b) to and from Canada.
This does not require proof of actual payment of all or a portion of the tuition – only the financial ability to pay the tuition and other expenses, the judgement stated.
The Judge agreed with the Applicant that the visa officer did not find that the Applicant did not have the financial capacity to pursue his studies in Canada.
The Judge’s view therefore was that for the purpose of the Officer’s comment as to payment of only the minimal tuition to hold the Applicant’s spot in the Program is unclear in the context of the Officer’s assessment of whether the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of an authorized stay.
In conclusion, the Judge stated that for all the reasons given, the Officer’s decision was unreasonable as it lacks justification, is unintelligible and fails to engage with the Applicant’s evidence.
The Court’s Judgement was that;
- The application for judicial review is granted;
- The decision is set aside and the matter shall be remitted to another officer for redetermination;
- There shall be no order as to costs; and
- No question of general importance for certification was proposed or arises.
Nnamdi Maduakor is a Writer, Investor and Entrepreneur
