A Federal Court has overturned an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) decision to deny a Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) to a Ghanaian international student, citing the officer’s failure to consider key evidence, including a letter from the applicant’s employer stating the company’s urgent need for her skills amid a labour shortage.
The applicant, S.D.O., studied at Confederation College in Thunder Bay, Ont., from 2020 to 2023. She mistakenly believed her study permit covered her entire stay. Upon realizing her status had expired, she ceased working and applied for a TRP, emphasizing that she was ineligible to apply for a Post Graduate Work Permit (PGWP) from outside Canada. She also provided letters of support from her employer, college officials, and community members, arguing that her contributions were needed in Canada’s workforce.
An IRCC officer denied the TRP request, citing S.D.O.’s non-compliance with immigration laws and stating that she had not provided sufficient evidence to justify her stay. The officer concluded she could apply for a new permit from abroad.
The Federal Court disagreed, ruling that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with crucial evidence, including letters of support from her employer and others, and that the decision lacked justification, transparency, and intelligibility.
Failure to consider key evidence
The court determined that the immigration officer’s decision was flawed because it did not meaningfully engage with S.D.O.’s central arguments and supporting documents. Among the key omissions:
Employer’s letter of support: A supervisor at the home support company where S.D.O. worked emphasized both her skills and the company’s need for her during a period of critical worker shortages. The officer’s decision did not acknowledge this letter or assess whether the labour shortage constituted a “compelling reason” to grant a TRP.
Impact of COVID-19: The applicant argued that pandemic-related disruptions contributed to her misunderstanding about the expiry of her study permit, as college advisors were unavailable for in-person consultations. The officer did not address this claim.
PGWP eligibility barrier: The applicant pointed out that if she were forced to leave Canada, she would be ineligible for a PGWP upon return. The officer’s decision failed to consider this consequence, despite TRPs being designed to address cases of hardship.
Community support: Letters from the dean of international education at her college, her landlord, and a friend who stated she wished to settle in Thunder Bay were not referenced in the officer’s reasons.
“The decision is entirely devoid of any reference to the applicant’s evidence,” the court wrote, adding that the reasoning lacked the justification required under administrative law principles established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov.
Officer’s reasoning deemed unjustified
The court also found that the officer’s reasoning was conclusory and failed to reflect an assessment of whether the applicant’s circumstances merited a TRP. While IRCC officers have wide discretion in issuing TRPs, their decisions must demonstrate a clear, rational chain of analysis.
The officer rejected the application on the basis that S.D.O. had overstayed her permit and should apply from outside Canada. However, the court noted that the officer did not engage with whether the strict application of immigration law would create disproportionate consequences in this case.
“The officer ignored or misunderstood the applicant’s conundrum,” the court wrote, adding that the decision “amounts to the kind of unjustified and conclusory reasoning specifically eschewed” by the Supreme Court.
The court granted the judicial review, sending the matter back for reconsideration by a different immigration officer. It concluded that the officer’s failure to meaningfully engage with the applicant’s evidence rendered the decision unreasonable.
The ruling does not guarantee the applicant will ultimately receive a TRP but requires that her case be re-evaluated with proper consideration of the evidence.
For more information, see Ocran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 517 (CanLII).
