Typically, to be eligible for a research allow, a potential scholar should:
- current a letter of acceptance from the academic establishment the place she intends to check. This college should be a Designated Studying Establishment;
- be capable to each pay the tutoring 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 might 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;
- cross any medical examinations;
- presumably present proof of medical health insurance;
- display that they’re a bona fide scholar and that they’ll depart Canada on the finish of the interval licensed by their keep.
Not each scholar wants a research allow. Exempt college students embrace:
- individuals searching for to check for a short-term program (except they want to work on campus).
- minor college students in Canada.
Approval Fee Statistics
The next charts have been obtained by Entry to Info Act requests.
Right here is the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) approval price for research allow functions primarily based on sure nations of origin from 2009 – 2013.
SP-approval-Charges
Here’s a breakdown of approvals for India, China, the Philippines, and Vietnam damaged down by stage of research, gender, age, and whether or not the individual utilized on-line or in individual.
Research Allow Approvals
Right here is the month-to-month 2019-2020 (Oct) approval statistics primarily based on nation and proposed program of research.
Research Allow Approval by Nation
Approval Charges
Right here is the breakdown of approvals for 2016 – 2020 by nation.
Research Allow Approval Fee by Age
Right here is the variety of college students on the post-secondary stage primarily based on nation of nationality.
College students at College
As nicely, listed below are two PDFs which present the variety of research allow functions obtained primarily based on college in addition to the variety of approvals.
Research Allow Approval
Research Allow Receipt
Lastly, the variety of research permits issued primarily based on port of entry, and refused primarily based on visa workplace.
A-2020-25204_Release package deal
Research allow approval charges primarily based on college, 2019-2023.
2A-2023-71827
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 short-term residents who has accomplished a course or program of research that may be a prerequisite to their enrolling at a chosen studying establishment. Pursuant to the Federal Courtroom of Canada resolution in Virk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), it’s not obligatory that the prerequisite have been accomplished in Canada.
Significant Engagement with Software
As with all functions 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 said:
…I respect that the context of a visa workplace, with immense pressures to supply a big quantity of selections every single day, don’t enable for in depth causes. The brevity of the Resolution, nonetheless, shouldn’t be 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 rules of justification and transparency require that an administrative resolution 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 call ought to have the chance to current their case absolutely and pretty underlies the obligation of procedural equity and is rooted in the correct 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 resolution makers display that they’ve truly listened to the events.
[…]
Once more, whereas the truth of visa workplaces and the context through which its officers work embrace important operational pressures and useful resource constraints created by enormous volumes of functions, this can’t exempt their selections from being attentive to the factual matrix put earlier than them. Failing to ask for primary responsiveness to the proof would deprive reasonableness assessment of the strong high quality that Vavilov requires at paras 13, 67 and 72. “Reasonableness” shouldn’t be synonymous with “voluminous causes”: easy, concise justification will do.
As nicely, in the case of frequent sense nation situations, the Federal Courtroom has famous that officers can’t make abstract statements about nation situations with out partaking with the proof. In Ghasemi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1296, Justice Favel said:
The explanations check with political and financial concerns 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 resolution on a hunch or hypothesis, and it’s not supported by the report or sufficiently articulated, that call shall be unreasonable (Demyati v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 701 at paras 16, 20).
Bona Fides
Along with the the reason why any short-term residency utility is likely to be refused concerning whether or not the individual will depart Canada by the top of their authorised keep, there are additionally causes for refusal which can be distinctive to check permits. Essentially 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 in opposition to arbitrariness is among the rules of elementary 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 utility, 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 is no such thing as a motive that’s articulated to recommend that this applicant would run afoul of part 220.1 (1) of the Rules:
Circumstances — 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 might be, it needs to be articulated for the choice to be cheap.
There are non-arbitary causes to refuse a research allow utility. Research allow functions are sometimes refused if a visa officer determines that an applicant’s program of research doesn’t mirror a logical instructional selection given an individual’s instructional background. Because the Federal Courtroom famous in Perez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2017 FC 1001, an applicant intending to check in areas completely disconnected from their background and expertise sometimes immediate visa officers to query the true intent behind a research allow utility. Nonetheless, the place a person is finishing a program which enhances their background and expertise, then an utility is more likely to be authorised.
As nicely, a number of Federal Courtroom selections word that it’s unreasonable for officers to “foray into profession counselling.” In Nia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1648, the Courtroom stated:
[28] Justice Fuhrer relied on Adom within the latest case of Seyedsalehi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1250 (““Seyedsalehi””), through which a visa officer refused a research allow utility as a result of the applicant’s pursuit of a faculty stage 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 finding out a school stage program illogical within the face of a beforehand studied Masters stage program at college. For instance, does the Officer correlate the Masters program in Malaysia with an analogous Masters stage program in Canada? Does the Officer discover the illogicality rests in a college (no matter the place positioned) versus a school program, i.e. is the latter thought-about to be a decrease stage 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. For my part, 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 will be utilized within the Applicant’s case. The Officer supplies no substantive motive for deciding that the Applicant’s pursued program of research is illogical given her earlier training at a better stage, 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 subject that research allow candidates face is satisfying visa officers that their proposed program of research is affordable in mild of the prices. Nonetheless, because the Federal Courtroom famous in Cervjakova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), a person’s resolution to check in Canada may 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 Courtroom not too long ago affirmed this resolution in Caianda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) and in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 199 when it said that there’s nothing incorrect with people placing a excessive worth on training.
One other helpful resolution on research permits and function 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 think about a research allow utility. That is partly as a result of it may recommend that the individual would have household assist. As nicely, in Ahadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 25, Justice Bell stated that refusing an applicant as a result of their dependent can 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 willpower that the person wouldn’t depart Canada on the finish of their research shall 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 Courtroom has repeatedly cautioned that an applicant’s lack of a dependent partner or youngsters, with none additional evaluation, shouldn’t essentially be thought-about a adverse think about assessing a research allow utility. In Gilavan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1698, for instance, Justice Lafreniere famous that this is able to 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 could have been “put collectively for the applying” is a credibility concern, because the Federal Courtroom decided in Opakunbi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 943.
Returning to Work
Research allow candidates will usually present letters from their employers confirming that they’ve permission to check 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 will be essential. In Bondarenko v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2021 FC 1106 Madam Justice MacDonald wrote:
The Applicant supplied a letter from her employer which “strongly encourage[s]” her to take a course in Canada. Given the size of time the Applicant can be gone, it was cheap for the Officer to weigh the lack of the Applicant’s job as a adverse issue. A confirmed intention to think about re-hire shouldn’t be the identical as a promise to re-hire. Within the circumstances, it was cheap 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 offer “latest training transcripts and diplomas”
in assist of her research allow request. With respect, this requirement imposed by the Officer appears reasonably unintelligible given the variety of years which have handed for the reason that Applicant accomplished her Bachelor’s program, the actual 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 data of her marks make to any a part of the duty being undertaken by the Officer”?
The reply, in these circumstances, is, for my part, “none”
.
In Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 817, Madam Justice Elliot said:
By way of his prior educational efficiency, I do word 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 will be thought-about by an officer. Nonetheless, I’m not glad that on this occasion, it was achieved 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 probability of success in his meant program of research. With out extra, this Courtroom shouldn’t be able 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 school 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 most of the components that may decide educational success are dynamic, not static”.
Nonetheless, the Federal Courtroom in Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1745, additionally dominated that an applicant’s expertise and skills will be taken under consideration in assessing a research allow utility, and that “Desirous to undertake a course of research through which one was unlikely to succeed may elevate questions on whether or not an applicant is a bona fide scholar who will depart Canada by the top of the interval licensed for his or her keep.”
As extra circumstances contain discussions of this subject attempting to determine an overarching precept can is getting difficult, 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, concentrate on whether or not the poor grades are in “core programs.”
Goal of Research
In Bista v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 574, Justice Régimbald wrote:
With respect, the Applicant is nineteen years of age. She is entitled to decide on her future profession and to take any measures she deems acceptable to realize her objectives. Any resolution in relation to research at that age can solely result in “profession development,” versus when extra mature college students want to pursue research in Canada in a subject-matter for which they have already got equal qualification, or when a promise of employment or promotion within the dwelling nation doesn’t require the diploma for which an Applicant needs to come back to Canada.”
Procedural Equity
The necessities of procedural equity are relaxed for research allow functions. The onus is on candidates to show their case, and a visa officer shouldn’t be required to offer them with a “operating rating” of weaknesses or give discover of issues arising from legislative necessities. Nonetheless, there are circumstances the place a visa officer shall be required to tell an applicant of issues with an utility, 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 primarily based on an IRCC officer’s willpower 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 legitimate concern about her dedication to go away Canada by the top of the brand new research allow she was requesting.
Nonetheless, 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 Rules 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 supplied her with a possibility 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). Nonetheless, procedural equity requires that an Applicant be given the chance to answer 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 shall 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 functions. In mild of those circumstances, the Applicant was entitled to be supplied with a possibility to reply these issues which she couldn’t have moderately foreseen as being of curiosity to the officer. For the reason that utility shall be returned to a different Non-Immigrant Officer for redetermination, the Applicant is now nicely suggested that she should handle these issues with this new officer.
Equally, in Popova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 326, Justice Diner put aside a research allow utility the place in a earlier utility IRCC solely raised issues about proof of funds. Within the subsequent utility, IRCC decided that proof of funds was positive, 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 means of understanding about them primarily based on the refusal causes for the earlier utility, stating that ” an interview could also be required in scholar visa functions the place the officer has fashioned an opinion that the applicant would don’t have any means 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 put in writing {that a} checking account had been “opened and inflated for the visa utility” with out offering the applicant a possibility to reply.
Lastly, pursuant to Justice Walker’s resolution in Al Aridi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 381, the place an applicant supplies enough proof, however an officer merely doesn’t consider that an applicant shall 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 possibility to reply. This resolution 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 utility over the price of finding out 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 finding out overseas, and all of the salutary results that it might have, together with receiving superior training, enhancing language expertise, gaining worldwide views, being immersed in overseas cultures, and enhancing profession prospects.
Concerning the third floor cited within the Resolution, Mr. Patel’s educational and employment historical past is within the area of enterprise. Subsequently, I discover nothing inherently unreasonable about pursuing additional research in his area.
Lastly, on the fourth subject cited, the Officer didn’t develop in anyway – or justify in any means – what the “private circumstances” is likely to be, or why these may render his attendance on the college “unreasonable.”
Minor Kids
