Court: Onus on Student to Prove Exemption from Study Permit Rules
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1467
- Decided
- Court file
- IMM-16742-24
- Full judgment
- Read the decision
Case Law Overview
Khandaker Rohan Karim v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1467
An international student on a study permit was forced to withdraw from university for over 150 days. CBSA issued an exclusion order for non-compliance, which the student challenged by claiming he was exempt from the study requirement due to being in a common-law relationship with another student.
Court Ruling
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review, finding the exclusion order reasonable. The Court affirmed that the onus was entirely on the applicant to raise and provide evidence of any potential exemption, such as a common-law relationship, during the admissibility process.
Key Quote from the Court
It is not a requirement of either enforcement officers or Minister's Delegates to discern, let alone consider, each potential process for which an applicant may be eligible, without such processes being raised by the applicant. (at para 27)
Expert Takeaways
-
The Onus is on You This case is a critical reminder that the burden of proof is always on the applicant. If you believe you qualify for an exemption to a rule, you must proactively raise it and provide clear, convincing evidence to the officer. Do not expect them to investigate potential exemptions for you.
-
Consistency is Key Your statements across all immigration applications must be consistent. The Court noted the applicant had previously declared himself 'single' on a permit extension application, which undermined his later claim of being in a common-law relationship during that period.
-
Maintain Study Permit Conditions Study permit holders must remain enrolled and actively pursue their studies. A break of more than 150 days can trigger inadmissibility proceedings. If personal circumstances force a prolonged break, seek professional legal advice immediately to understand your options.
-
Procedural Fairness Has Limits While officers must provide a fair process, this does not extend to advising applicants on every possible legal argument or exemption they could make. Fairness requires giving you a chance to respond to the allegations, not providing you with a legal strategy.
There is a deadline on this
That is the window to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review at the Federal Court, counted from the day you were notified of the decision. An extension can be requested, but it is granted at the Court's discretion - it is not automatic.
Check my deadlineDoes this ruling apply to your situation?
Tick whatever is true for you. Nothing is sent anywhere - this stays in your browser.
That combination is worth a proper look. It does not mean you have a case - only a lawyer reading your actual documents can say that - but it does mean the question is worth asking before your filing window closes.
Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to change. For advice specific to your situation, please schedule a consultation with a qualified legal professional.
Refusal letter in hand?
Don't accept an unfair decision — explore your judicial review options with our team.
No obligation - we review your documents and tell you if a Federal Court application is realistic.
Questions people ask after reading a case like this
Does this mean my own case will succeed?
No. Every application is decided on its own record. A reported decision shows how the Federal Court has reasoned about a particular kind of error - it does not predict the result of a different file. What it can tell you is whether the problem in your refusal is the kind of problem the Court has been willing to intervene on.
How long do I have to challenge a refusal?
Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act you generally have 15 days to file an Application for Leave and for Judicial Review if the decision was made inside Canada, and 60 days if it was made outside Canada, counted from when you were notified. The Court can extend that period, but an extension is discretionary - it is not automatic.
What actually happens at the Federal Court?
Judicial review has two stages. You file the application and a written record, and a judge decides on paper whether to grant leave - permission for the case to proceed. If leave is granted, there is a hearing. The Court does not re-decide your immigration application; it decides whether the officer's decision was reasonable and procedurally fair. If you succeed, the file is normally sent back to be decided again by a different officer.
Do I have to be in Canada to bring an application?
No. Applicants outside Canada regularly bring judicial review applications, which is why the longer 60-day deadline exists for decisions made abroad. Applicants are not normally required to attend in person.
What happens in the free 15-minute review?
You explain what was refused or delayed and when you were notified. We tell you whether your filing window is still open, which issues in the decision look arguable, and what the realistic options are - including reapplying instead of litigating, where that is the better route. There is no obligation to retain us afterwards.
More Study Permit rulings
Federal Court: Vague Fairness Letter Invalidates Misrepresentation Finding
Court Backs Officer: Vague Study Plan and Unproven Funds Sink Study Permit
Federal Court: Security Checks Can Justify Study Permit Processing Delays
Court Rules Officers Can't Act as Career Counsellors in Study Permit Cases
Written by
Ali Dadkhah
Ali Dadkhah is a litigator whose practice is dedicated to challenging government decisions at the Federal Court of Canada. He specializes in judicial review, providing a crucial avenue for recourse for individuals and businesses who have faced unfair or unreasonable administrative outcomes. Bilingual legal support in English and Persian (Farsi)