Woman from Nepal challenged denial of permit to study in Montreal college
Following the rejection of a Nepalese woman’s student permit application, the Federal Court of Canada remitted the matter upon rejecting an attempt by counsel for the respondent, the immigration and citizenship minister, to fill obvious gaps in the visa officer’s reasoning.
In Bista v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 128, the applicant resided in Nepal with her husband, son, and daughter. She applied for a study permit to complete her two-year certificate in digital marketing at Matrix College in Montreal.
A visa officer denied the applicant a student visa. The officer listed the factors to consider, then declared that the applicant failed to show how the program would progress her career and failed to demonstrate that she would leave the country when required.
The applicant applied for a judicial review under s. 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001.
Case remitted
The Federal Court granted the judicial review application, given that the applicant had no opportunity to consider the issues more fully.
Acknowledging the apparent mootness of this case, the court returned the matter for a redetermination, which would consider whether it was moot.
The court accepted the low threshold applicable to visa cases. However, the court ruled that the reasons of the visa officer – as the administrative decision-maker – were defective, lacked intelligibility, and thus fell short of the mark.
The court acknowledged that counsel for the minister of immigration and citizenship attempted to explain what the officer did not articulate, what inferences the officer might have made, and why the visa denial was reasonable.
“The issue is that it is not for counsel to find dots and connect them, to make the connections between facts and possible inferences,” wrote Justice Yvan Roy. “The reviewing court may connect the dots as long as the lines and the direction they are headed may be readily drawn.”
The court held that the reasons articulated by the respondent minister’s counsel could not replace the decision-maker’s, fill the gaps, and identify additional supporting reasons beyond the officer’s decision.
The court acknowledged a visa officer’s significant discretion in assessing the evidence and reaching a decision.
However, the court said it could not allow the administrative decision-maker to avoid their responsibility to provide transparent and intelligible reasons justifying the basis for reaching the decision. The court added that it could not substitute the officer’s reasons with its own assessment.
Given that it was not a court of first review, the court noted that it:
- could not decide issues
- could not replace the administrative decision-maker
- could not fashion its own reasons to supplement the administrative decision
- should show restraint and respect
- would consider the decision-maker’s reasons and assess whether the decision was untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints, as required by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653
- would defer to a decision that was justified, transparent, and intelligible, which were the hallmarks of reasonableness
