Fairness or Bias? Reflections on the Federal Court’s Recent Ruling on a Study Permit Application from Iran

The recent Federal Court case, Nezhad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2024 FC 1747), brought forward essential questions regarding the appropriate use of discretion in Canadian immigration decisions. The applicant, Parvaneh Shirazi Nezhad, a highly qualified professional from Iran, was denied a study permit based on the subjective reasoning of an immigration officer. This decision was ultimately overturned by Justice Diner, highlighting significant issues around the discretion exercised by decision-makers in Canada’s immigration system.

In my view, this case exemplifies how discretionary powers can, when misapplied, not only create barriers for applicants but also undermine the transparency, fairness, and integrity of Canada’s immigration system. This article will explore the critical aspects of this case, the implications of unchecked discretion, and the role that immigration lawyers must play in holding administrative decisions accountable.

The Unjustifiable Reliance on “Single and Mobile” Status

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is the immigration officer’s reliance on Ms. Nezhad’s “single and mobile” status as grounds to question her intent to return to Iran. Citing her personal choices—such as her marital status and mobility—as negative factors demonstrates a disturbing overreach. The suggestion that single individuals without dependents are less likely to follow the terms of their visas is not only deeply flawed but disrespectful. It assumes that such personal characteristics reflect an inclination to disregard the law, ignoring that being “single and mobile” is a legitimate lifestyle choice, not an indicator of fraudulent intent.

This reasoning exposes a dangerous precedent: discretionary powers that allow officers to make assumptions about applicants’ personal lives. The very idea that being single or lacking dependents could somehow negate someone’s stated intent to comply with immigration rules is inherently discriminatory. In an increasingly mobile world, where professionals often live and work across borders without traditional family structures, this reasoning is not only outdated but unfairly penalizes applicants based on irrelevant personal factors. Immigration officers are granted discretion, but this discretion should never extend to making character judgments on applicants’ personal life choices.

Ignoring Strong Family Ties and Irrelevant Character Assumptions

The officer’s failure to consider Ms. Nezhad’s substantial family ties in Iran only amplifies the issues with this case. Ms. Nezhad resides with her parents and is an integral part of her family’s support structure. Yet, the officer failed to engage with this evidence in a meaningful way, dismissing it outright. Such arbitrary treatment of evidence contradicts one of the core tenets of administrative law: the requirement to make decisions based on all relevant information.

Ignoring strong evidence of family ties and support in the applicant’s home country is not just an oversight; it is an unjustifiable omission that reflects an unwillingness to engage with the applicant’s true circumstances. In immigration law, family ties are often considered a fundamental indicator of intent to return. By disregarding this key factor, the officer applied their discretion in a way that was detached from the realities of the applicant’s life, rendering the decision highly unreasonable.

The Federal Court has consistently emphasized that discretion must be exercised with fairness and transparency, respecting the rights of applicants to have their cases assessed on actual merits, not presumptions. Here, the officer’s decision lacked both elements. When decision-makers ignore relevant evidence and instead make unfounded assumptions, they stray from the purpose of immigration regulations, which aim to assess eligibility objectively.

Dismissing Career Progression: An Arbitrary Application of Discretion

Another striking aspect of this case was the officer’s dismissal of Ms. Nezhad’s study plan as an “inconsistent career progression.” As a professional with a Master’s degree in architectural engineering, Ms. Nezhad sought to enhance her credentials by studying project management—a field complementary to her expertise. Yet, the officer interpreted this additional education as a sign of inconsistency. This interpretation borders on arbitrary.

Educational and career paths are rarely linear, especially in today’s global and competitive landscape. Professionals frequently pursue studies in new fields to diversify their skills and remain competitive. This is not “inconsistent” career progression; rather, it reflects a proactive approach to career development. When an officer assumes an applicant’s career path should fit within a narrow framework, they not only overstep their role but also fail to recognize the realities of professional growth in a global context.

This arbitrary application of discretion effectively places decision-makers in the role of career counselors—a function beyond the purview of their duties. Immigration officers are not charged with determining the value or consistency of applicants’ career paths; their duty is to evaluate applications based on eligibility, merit, and evidence. When an officer crosses this boundary, as seen here, they misuse their discretion, veering into subjective judgment rather than legal assessment.

Lack of Transparency: Unsubstantiated Comparisons of Educational Opportunities

The officer also questioned the cost-benefit rationale behind Ms. Nezhad’s choice to study in Canada, suggesting that similar programs may exist in Iran at a lower cost. While officers are within their rights to consider whether applicants could pursue similar studies in their home countries, such comparisons must be based on substantiated facts, not assumptions. In this case, the officer provided no evidence that comparable project management programs exist in Iran, leaving the assertion unsubstantiated.

Transparency is fundamental to a fair immigration process. Applicants deserve decisions based on evidence, and when officers introduce unverified assumptions, they not only compromise the integrity of the decision but also fail to uphold the transparency that is critical to public trust in immigration systems. Decision-makers should not present personal judgments or unproven claims as facts. In cases like Ms. Nezhad’s, officers must evaluate applications based on the records before them, not speculation.

This lack of transparency highlights a broader issue in Canadian immigration: the need for clear and consistent standards in the exercise of discretion. If officers are to make decisions that impact individuals’ lives and futures, those decisions must be backed by credible evidence and grounded in objectivity, not influenced by subjective or unsupported views.

The Role of Immigration Lawyers: Advocating for Fair, Evidence-Based Decisions

As immigration lawyers, it is our responsibility to stand as advocates for our clients, ensuring that administrative decision-makers are held to high standards of fairness, transparency, and evidence-based reasoning. This is particularly critical as Canada navigates a complex immigration landscape, shaped by political pressures and changing public attitudes toward immigration. The increasing scrutiny on immigration programs can sometimes create an environment where decision-makers may feel pressured to apply discretion conservatively or even punitively.

However, such pressures should never influence the legal principles that underpin Canada’s immigration system. Decision-makers must be free from the sway of external biases, treating each application with the objectivity and fairness it deserves. If immigration lawyers do not hold decision-makers accountable for their actions, who will? We are uniquely positioned to advocate for fair processes, to challenge arbitrary decisions, and to ensure that applicants receive a transparent assessment based on their unique circumstances and merits—not on the personal beliefs of individual officers.

This case also underscores the importance of informing the public about judicial review decisions that influence the standards and practices of immigration authorities. By shedding light on these cases, we can highlight the value of judicial oversight and encourage a culture of accountability within administrative decision-making bodies.

The Broader Implications for Canada’s Immigration Landscape in 2024

In 2024, as Canada grapples with a shifting political climate and heightened scrutiny over immigration levels, it is crucial to remember that immigration decisions must remain grounded in law, not politics. The public sentiment around immigration may fluctuate, but the integrity of our immigration system must be unwavering. When officers allow external pressures to influence their decisions, they not only compromise the fairness of individual cases but also erode the public’s confidence in the entire system.

This case highlights why, as immigration lawyers, we must remain vigilant in advocating for the rule of law in all immigration decisions. Discretionary power is necessary within the immigration process, but it must be exercised with restraint, respect, and a commitment to fairness. Immigration authorities should not allow their decisions to be influenced by shifting political currents or public sentiment. Rather, they must remain focused on assessing each case on its own merits, free from prejudice and assumption.

Conclusion: Upholding Integrity, Fairness, and Transparency in Canadian Immigration

The decision in Nezhad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration serves as a critical reminder of the importance of integrity within Canada’s immigration system. When discretionary power is exercised without transparency, fairness, or respect for the evidence presented, the consequences extend far beyond the individual applicant—they threaten the credibility of the system itself.

As immigration lawyers, we have a duty to hold decision-makers accountable to the high standards that Canada’s immigration system promises. We must continue to advocate for fair and evidence-based assessments, challenging arbitrary decisions when they arise. This case illustrates that unchecked discretion not only harms applicants but erodes the trust that underpins Canada’s immigration system.

In a time of evolving immigration policies and public opinions, let us remember that Canada’s strength lies in its commitment to fair and objective immigration processes. As advocates, it is our role to ensure these principles are upheld and to remind decision-makers of their duty to respect the individual circumstances and choices of each applicant. The Nezhad case exemplifies why we must remain resolute in our pursuit of justice and fairness in Canadian immigration law, for only through vigilance can we uphold the integrity of this essential system.

—o—

About the Author

I’m Ahmet Faruk Ocak, a Canadian immigration lawyer and the founder of Blacksy Immigration Law Firm 🌊. 

At Blacksy, we specialize in providing honest, straightforward, and tailored immigration solutions to individuals and businesses worldwide. Our brand promise is simple: no unnecessary fuss, no false hopes, and no empty promises—just realistic, reliable guidance to help you achieve your immigration goals.

Whether you’re expanding your business to Canada, transferring top talent, or planning your future here, we’re here to guide you with precision, transparency, and care.

Visit us at www.blacksyimmigration.com to learn more or to start your journey.