Viswanath v. M.C.I. (IMM-3747-23)
Mr. Viswanath is an Indian national who had applied for a Study Permit visa to study at a Canadian college in Ontario, Canada. He had planned to pursue an Ontario College Graduate Certificate. Prior to applying to study in Canada he had completed his Master’s Degree. Mr. Viswanath included a detailed Study Plan in his Study Permit visa application. In it he set out in detail his rationale for choosing the program of study at the Canadian college. However, a visa officer refused his application.
The visa officer refused Mr. Viswanath’s Study Permit visa application for two reasons:
a) The visa officer found that Mr. Viswanath did not submit a Study Plan;
b) The visa officer found it “illogical” that Mr. Viswanath would be pursing a college program when he already has a Master’s degree.
Eastman Law Office successfully argued in writing before the Federal Court that the visa officer missed/overlooked evidence, namely Mr. Viswanath’s detailed study plan, contrary to what the Supreme Court of Canada said in M.C.I. v. Vavilov 2019 SCC 65 at paragraph 126. We also argued that the visa officer erroneously stepped into the role of a career counsellor in finding that it was “illogical” that Mr. Viswanath wanted to pursue a college program when he already has a Master’s degree and therefore failed to properly review the evidence before him.
Immigration Canada agreed with Eastman Law Office’s legal argument and consented to the Federal Court granting Mr. Viswanath’s Application for Leave and Judicial Review. The court ordered that the visa officer’s decision refusing his study permit be quashed and that it be reopened and reconsidered by another visa officer.
