TRV application: approved after two refusals and two judicial review applications

This is a Study Permit success story about persistence, preparation, and advocacy from start to finish. Our client, an accomplished educator from Ghana, faced two refusals of her Study Permit application to pursue a PhD degree program at the University of Calgary. We assisted her from the outset: building the underlying application, anticipating potential refusal risks, and then litigating both refusals at the Federal Court. That end-to-end involvement mattered. When you know the file inside out, you can craft a record that’s not only compelling to an officer, but also “JR-proof” - i.e., ready to withstand scrutiny if a refusal must be challenged.

After the first refusal, we brought a judicial review and obtained a settlement and reconsideration. When a second refusal issued on nearly identical grounds, we returned to Court; Department of Justice counsel contacted us almost immediately to settle, before Rule 9 reasons even issued. The result: the refusal did not stand, and our client’s path to study in Canada was restored.

Background of the Case

Our client is a seasoned language teacher from Ghana with more than a decade of classroom experience and proven leadership in curriculum and instruction. Her academic trajectory naturally led to graduate study in French to advance into university-level teaching - a step aligned with Ghana’s ongoing emphasis on French language education nationally. She is multilingual (including French and English), has studied abroad, and has long framed language as a bridge for cultural exchange and opportunity. These details and her return plan were set out clearly and cohesively in her Letter of Intent.

She earned admission to a research-intensive Canadian university to pursue a Master of Arts in Languages, Literatures and Cultures (French). Critically, her offer included departmental funding and an International Graduate Tuition Award.

Working closely with her, we prepared an application package that was meticulously documented and cross-referenced:

• Academic rationale & career plan: The program choice was directly connected to her prior degree in French, extensive teaching history, and concrete objective to return to Ghana to teach at the university level and mentor future language educators—explicitly tying the studies to Ghana’s policy focus on expanding French instruction.

• Financial capacity: We built a detailed, verifiable funding narrative:

  • University funding and tuition award noted above;

  • Personal savings in Ghanaian bank accounts;

  • Family support documented through sworn statements and bank evidence

  • We also explained the mechanics of several larger bank deposits (currency conversion logistics via relatives with banking access), with paper-trail corroboration to satisfy source-of-funds scrutiny.

• Home ties & temporary intent: Her spouse, four children, parents, and siblings remained in Ghana; she described the family’s business and caregiving arrangements during her temporary absence and the reasons she would return on completion. This was supported by documentary details and a consistent narrative across forms and letters.

• Logistics aligned to studies: She secured a modest housing arrangement to keep expenses predictable, and following prior processing delays, obtained a deferral to the Winter 2025 intake, preserving the academic opportunity while IRCC reconsidered.

From counsel’s perspective, the aim was not merely to “submit an application,” but to develop a coherent evidentiary record that pre-empted common refusal grounds (purpose of stay, financial sufficiency, and ties) and preserved every key fact for the Court record if judicial review became necessary. That approach proved decisive when refusals followed: the same carefully marshalled documents and explanations that made the application strong also made the case litigation-ready.

The Letter of Intent – A Brilliant Roadmap

What set this case apart was not just the documentation, but the clarity and details contained in the Letter of Intent. In it, we wove together the Client’s personal journey, her professional experience, and her academic goals into a seamless narrative:

• Lifelong passion for languages: From her early childhood in Ghana’s Upper West region to her university studies and year abroad in France, she showed how French became central to her identity and professional life. She also pursued German at the Goethe-Institut, displaying an intellectual curiosity that extended beyond her immediate field.

• Professional excellence: She had more than a decade of experience teaching French and English, rising to the role of assistant headteacher, where she not only taught but also developed curriculum and mentored other educators. She later transitioned to teaching at the senior high school level, reinforcing her desire to continue contributing to Ghana’s educational development.

• Academic vision: She explained why a Master’s degree at the University of Calgary was the essential next step—both as a prerequisite for teaching French at the university level in Ghana and as a foundation for pursuing a future PhD. She underscored that Canada’s environment, with its francophone communities and its robust academic support, offered resources not available in Ghana.

• Financial and logistical preparation: Her LOI didn’t just list resources—it carefully explained how each stream of funding worked together: scholarships, stipends, personal savings, and family support. She even addressed the mechanics of currency conversions in her bank deposits, anticipating and neutralizing potential officer doubts.

• Ties and temporary intent: She candidly acknowledged the personal sacrifice of leaving her spouse and four young children behind in Ghana, but emphasized that the move was temporary and motivated by a desire to return with enhanced qualifications. She explained how her husband and family would manage their business and caregiving responsibilities during her studies.

It was, in short, a model Letter of Intent—the kind of submission that not only satisfied the requirements of a visa officer but also created a litigation-ready record for the Court. If IRCC chose to refuse despite such a comprehensive presentation, the unreasonableness of that refusal would be plain for judicial review.

The First Refusal and Judicial Review

Despite the strength of her application, IRCC refused the Study Permit, citing insufficient financial resources and a lack of assurance she would return to Ghana after her studies. These were precisely the concerns her application had pre-emptively and comprehensively addressed.

Because we had assisted her from the outset, every detail was already documented and cross-referenced. That meant we were able to move quickly into litigation, filing an application for judicial review at the Federal Court.

During the proceedings, it became evident that IRCC’s decision could not withstand scrutiny. The matter was ultimately resolved by settlement: IRCC agreed to set aside the refusal and reconsider her application.

For many applicants, a settlement and reconsideration would represent the end of the matter. But in this case, IRCC’s reconsideration resulted in a second refusal—on essentially the same grounds, and once again ignoring the evidence of funding, academic purpose, and strong home ties.

This development underscored two things:

1. Even the most carefully prepared applications can face unfair refusals.

2. Having a file prepared with judicial review in mind ensures that each step—from application to litigation—is supported by a solid evidentiary foundation.

It also set the stage for the decisive second challenge at the Federal Court.

The Second Refusal and Judicial Review

When the second refusal arrived, it felt like déjà vu. The officer once again dismissed the client’s extensive funding and overlooked her clear temporary intent, despite the detailed explanations and supporting evidence that had already been presented.

At this point, we filed a second application for judicial review. Because we had been with the client since the beginning, assisting in preparing the original Study Permit application and knowing the record inside and out, we were able to move forward quickly and decisively.

This time, the response from the Department of Justice was telling. Even before the Court issued Rule 9 reasons, DOJ counsel contacted us almost immediately to settle the matter. The refusal was indefensible, and IRCC recognized that prolonging the litigation would only confirm the unreasonableness of the decision. The speed of this settlement reinforced what we had argued from the start: when an application is carefully constructed with full documentation, a refusal based on ignoring that evidence cannot stand.

Why This Case Matters

This case is a powerful reminder of several key lessons for international students and other immigration applicants:

1. Knowing the case inside out is critical: Because we had assisted the client from the application stage, we built a submission that was not only strong in substance but also ready for litigation if necessary. A “JR-proof” application ensures that if an officer issues an unreasonable refusal, the record speaks for itself in Federal Court.

2. Persistence pays off. Our client could have given up after the first refusal, or even after the second. Instead, she trusted the process, pursued her rights, and ultimately achieved the outcome she deserved.

3. Judicial review is an essential safeguard. Officers can and do make unreasonable decisions, sometimes more than once. Federal Court oversight ensures accountability and prevents applicants from being denied opportunities on arbitrary grounds.