WHY STUDY PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE REFUSED
(Based on IRCC Officer Notes – R216(1)(b))
Many applicants are refused not because of finances or documents, but because their study plan is not considered reasonable under IRPR R216(1)(b).
Below are the actual officer comments (verbatim) commonly found in GCMS notes:
1. Inconsistent Education
Previous schooling and/or employment inconsistent with current educational goals; illogical study progression.
=> This means your chosen program does not align with your background.
2. Study History
Given the applicant’s previous education and/or employment history, I am not satisfied the motivation to pursue this particular program, at this point in time in Canada, is reasonable.
=> The timing of your studies does not make sense.
3. Potential Career
The applicant has failed to satisfy me that pursuing the selected program of study is reasonable when weighed against the potential career/employment benefits after completion.
=> The program does not clearly support your career goals.
4. Lower Level Studies
The proposed study plan is inconsistent with the applicant’s academic/work history and does not outline a clear career path for which such an educational program would be of benefit. Applicant possesses a higher academic level of education compared to the proposed studies in the LOA, the intended program is a redundant course of action and does not appear to be a logical progression in their career path. I am not satisfied that this is a reasonable progression of studies.
=> You are studying below your current qualifications.
5. Same Level Studies
The proposed study plan is inconsistent with the applicant’s academic/work history and does not outline a clear career path for which such an educational program would be of benefit. Applicant possesses a similar academic level of education compared to the proposed studies in the LOA, the intended program is a redundant course of action and does not appear to be a logical progression in their career path. I am not satisfied that this is a reasonable progression of studies.
=> There is no upgrade or added value.
6. Overqualified / No Need to Study
The applicant demonstrates (through their submitted documentation) that they possess an acceptable combination of education, training and experience in their respective field. This negates the necessity for the international education towards their career advancement and leads to concerns that their motivation of pursuing education in Canada is to seek entry for reasons other than temporary. I am not satisfied with the applicant’s purpose/intention to pursue studies in CDA.
=> You already have sufficient qualifications and experience.
7. Skills Already Acquired
Reviewing the previous stated education and considering the full/time employment as XXXXXXX XXXXX, it confirms the applicant’s expertise in their declared occupation, additionally, the provided description of tasks performed by the applicant (outlined in their submitted study plan) indicates they already possess the skills necessary for their vocation and questions the intended purpose of applying to the DLI program. I am not satisfied with the proposed studies as the applicant has already achieved the benefits of the program through their previous work experiences. It is not evident why applicant would study this program at such great expense considering applicant already possesses the same level of qualifications.
=> Your work experience already covers what the program teaches.
8. No Transcripts
No proof provided of previous studies; marks sheets, academic record or diplomas. Unable to determine applicant’s ability to successfully complete the study program in Canada.
=> Missing academic documents reduces credibility.
THAT HOA TON, RCIC-IRB R800106