Akbar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2025 FC 1476
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 8 September 2025
- Posture
- Judicial Review — Immigration (study Permit) / Final Judgment and Remittal Order
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 8 September 2025
- Posture
- Judicial Review — Immigration (study Permit) / Final Judgment and Remittal Order
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The refusal was set aside because it was unreasonable for disregarding relevant factual constraints, including the applicant's evidence; the appropriate remedy is remittal for redetermination by a different officer within 45 days, applying the regulatory and policy criteria in force on the applicant's original application date (October 4, 2023).
Court disposition
Application for judicial review granted; refusal set aside; matter remitted for directed redetermination.
Orders
- The application for judicial review is granted and the refusal of the Applicant's study permit application is set aside.
- The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different officer within 45 days of the date of this order.
- The redetermination will be based on the Respondent's regulatory and policy criteria for study permits as they existed on October 4, 2023.
- There is no order regarding costs and there is no question for certification.
02
Material facts
Parties
Umair Akbar
Applicant Counsel: self-representedThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent Counsel: Adrian HutchesonAmounts and remedies
- Days for Redetermination: 45
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review — Immigration (study Permit) / Final Judgment and Remittal Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the second refusal of the study permit was reasonable
- 02
Whether the applicant was prejudiced by two unreasonable decisions
- 03
Whether the matter should be remitted for redetermination and what directions are required
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant challenged the second refusal of his study permit, refused the Respondent's settlement offer because of delay and changes in study permit regulations and policy that he says prejudiced him since his first application.
- Respondent
- Respondent conceded the latest refusal was unreasonable and offered to set aside and redetermine the application, proposing redetermination rather than further litigation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, paras 105-107,125-128
A decision is unreasonable if it disregards relevant factual constraints and the applicant's evidence and submissions.
- 02
Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, s.18.1(3)(b)
Federal Court may give directions for redetermination to avoid prejudice, including remittal to a different decision-maker under s.18.1(3)(b).
- 03
ABCD v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1296 at para 67
Prejudice from multiple unreasonable decisions justifies directed redetermination to prevent further prejudice.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The refusal was set aside because it was unreasonable for disregarding relevant factual constraints, including the applicant's evidence; the appropriate remedy is remittal for redetermination by a different officer within 45 days, applying the regulatory and policy criteria in force on the applicant's original application date (October 4, 2023).
Obiter and limits
- Court acknowledged respondent's concession but proceeded to provide directions to prevent further prejudice.
- No order as to costs and no certification of question were made.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review granted; refusal set aside; matter remitted for directed redetermination.
- The application for judicial review is granted and the refusal of the Applicant's study permit application is set aside.
- The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different officer within 45 days of the date of this order.
- The redetermination will be based on the Respondent's regulatory and policy criteria for study permits as they existed on October 4, 2023.
- There is no order regarding costs and there is no question for certification.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 8 September 2025
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 8 September 2025
Akbar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-09-08 Neutral citation 2025 FC 1476 File numbers IMM-12975-24 Decision Content Date: 20250908 Docket: IMM-12975-24 Citation: 2025 FC 1476 Toronto, Ontario, September 8, 2025 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista BETWEEN:
UMAIR AKBAR Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS (Delivered orally from the bench on September 8, 2025) [1] In this judicial review application, Umair Akbar challenges the second refusal of his study permit application. His study permit application was first refused on January 17, 2024, and that decision was set aside for redetermination with the consent of the Respondent. On redetermination, Mr. Akbar’s study permit application was again refused on July 22, 2024. [2] The Respondent agrees that the latest refusal decision rendered on Mr. Akbar’s study permit application is unreasonable and has offered to set aside and redetermine the application. Mr. Akbar refused the settlement offer because he is concerned about the delay as a result of the two refusals, and he is concerned about changes in study permit regulations and policy that have prejudiced him since the time of his first application. [3] I agree with the parties that the decision refusing Mr. Akbar’s study permit application is unreasonable and will be set aside because of its disregard of the relevant factual constraints, specifically, the evidence and submissions of Mr. Akbar (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, at paras 105-107, 125-128). [4] I also agree with Mr. Akbar that he has been prejudiced by two unreasonable decisions on his study permit application. To address this prejudice and in an attempt to avoid further
prejudice, directions will be provided pursuant to subsection 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act RSC, 1985, c F-7 for the redetermination of the application (ABCD v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1296 at para 67). JUDGMENT in IMM-12975-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1.The application for judicial review is granted, and the refusal of the Applicant’s study permit application is set aside. 2.The matter is remitted for redetermination by a different officer within 45 days of the date of this order. 3.The redetermination will be based on the Respondent’s regulatory and policy criteria for study permits as they existed at the time of the Applicant’s original study permit application on October 4, 2023. 4.There is no order regarding costs and there is no question for certification. blank “Michael Battista” blank Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-12975-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: UMAIR AKBAR v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:
BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: BATTISTA J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 APPEARANCES: Umair Akbar
FOR THE APPLICANT (on his own behalf) Adrian Hutcheson For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Halifax, Nova Scotia For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.