Exercise Caution When Claiming Dual Intent on Study Permit Applications

[16] The respondent, on the other hand, argues that the applicant’s motivation letter was vague, contradictory, and could not properly be interpreted as supporting a singular intention of returning to the UK. The respondent submits that the applicant had the burden of convincing the officer that she would leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay and that she failed to discharge that burden.

[17] I agree with the respondent that the applicant’s motivation letter is contradictory and unclear. In the first portion of her letter, the applicant indicates that her intention is to remain permanently in Canada. She speaks of “starting a new life in Canada” and states that she “will be happier in a country where there are more job opportunities”. If her sole intention was to stay in Canada only long enough to complete her studies, as is argued by the applicant, then the additional job opportunities available in Canada would be of no relevance. In the latter portion of the applicant’s letter, however, she indicates that “when” she returns to the UK she will be able to use the education received in Canada as a competitive advantage in her job search.

[18] The motivation letter, thus, indicates both an intention to stay in Canada as well as an intention to leave Canada and return to the UK. This is different from indicating a “dual intent” within the meaning of subsection 22(2) of the IRPA, because that type of a “dual intent” is actually an intention to remain permanently in Canada, coupled with an intention to abide by immigration laws as required – i.e. a willingness to leave Canada if required to do so. The two intentions involved under subsection 22(2) are complementary, not contradictory.

[19] Given that the intentions expressed in the applicant’s motivation letter appear to be contradictory, it cannot be said that the officer acted unreasonably in finding that the letter provided little support for the proposition that the applicant would leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay.

[20] Indeed, the burden was with the applicant to demonstrate that she would leave Canada at the end of her study period. As indicated by Justice Russel Zinn in Wang, above, at para 14, “The Officer is required to assess the evidence presented and weigh that evidence to determine whether it establishes on the balance of probabilities that the applicant will leave Canada at the conclusion of [the] study permit.”

(emphasis added)

In this case, the Applicant did not interplay her two intentions properly in her letter. It was not a situation where she presented her ability to return primarily. Her letter gave the appear of having two separate intentions (a Plan A and a Plan B) rather than a Plan that considered both. Again, here is where authorized representatives can add value and applicants should think carefully before writing intentions into their study plans.

3) Officers still struggle with dual intention arguments

In Mahida v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 423 (CanLII) , the Applicant’s study permit was refused. Among other mistakes (including the Officer’s failure to properly assess the online MBA she took and a letter from the University), it is clear that the Officer failed to understand dual intent by the following assertion (found at para 30 of the decision):

PA has failed to adequately demonstrate that proposed course of studies is logical or beneficial to their education or professional advancement as she states that she would like to live in Canada yet also intends to work in real estate in India.

Mr. Justice Russell in allowing the judicial review writes:

[31] There is nothing inherently illogical about the Applicant wanting to eventually live in Canada (a goal that she may or may not achieve at some point in the future) and her intent to work in real estate in India until that goal is achieved, and indefinitely if that goal is not achieved.

[32] Consequently, I simply fail to see how this supports the Officer’s conclusion that the Applicant may not leave Canada at the end of her period of authorized stay.

[33] Other reasons are given in the Decision for a negative conclusion but, as the Officer makes clear, he is weighing the incentive to remain in Canada against the Applicant’s ties to India. The errors I have mentioned are extremely material to this weighing process and hence render it unreasonable. The matter must be returned for reconsideration by a different officer.

(emphasis added)

While I think Mr. Justice Russell’s decision is right that the Officer failed to assess dual intention, I am a little confused still by para 33. It seems to be, by IRCC’s guidance, that the very exercise of dual intention is to examine whether the ties to the home country are strong, where there may be an incentives to remain beyond one’s authorized stay, and ultimately whether the Applicant’s stated (or unstated intentions) are credible.

The website states:

In assessing the applicant’s intentions, the individual circumstances of the temporary residence applicant must be examined; refusals of non-bona fide temporary residents may only withstand legal challenge when the refusal is based on the information related to the specific application before an officer.