Federal Court Upholds Exclusion Order in Karim v. Canada, Rules Students Must Prove Study‑Permit Compliance

# A New Era in Study Permit Compliance: Federal Court Upholds Exclusion Order for Student Who Failed to Maintain Full-Time Enrollment 📅 Date: September 5, 2025

⚖️ Case Citation: Karim v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1467

The Federal Court has just released a pivotal decision in *Karim v. Canada* (2025 FC 1467), signaling a stricter enforcement approach by both IRCC and CBSA against international students who fail to comply with their study permit conditions. This case marks an important precedent because it clarifies that the onus is squarely on the student to prove compliance or to demonstrate eligibility for an exemption.

--- ## Case Background

Mr. Khondaker Rohan Karim arrived in Canada in 2021 as an international student at Memorial University. Following the death of his grandmother, he struggled academically and was forced to withdraw for two semesters. This left him unenrolled for more than 150 days, contrary to s.220.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), which requires study permit holders to: * Remain continuously enrolled at a Designated Learning Institution, and
* Actively pursue their program of study.

In August 2024, CBSA determined that Mr. Karim had failed to comply with these conditions and issued a report under s.44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). A Minister’s Delegate subsequently issued an exclusion order under s.228(1)(c)(v) of the IRPR, finding him inadmissible for non-compliance.

--- ## The Applicant’s Arguments

Mr. Karim raised two main arguments before the Court: * That by the time of the exclusion order, he was again enrolled full-time and therefore in compliance.
* That he should have benefited from an exemption under s.220.1(3)(b) IRPR, which excuses study permit holders who are “family members” of another study permit holder. He argued that his common-law relationship with his partner, Ms. Tanha (also a student), exempted him from continuous enrollment.

--- ## The Court’s Findings

Justice Grant firmly rejected these arguments: * Onus on the Student: The Court emphasized that it is the applicant’s responsibility to establish compliance. If relying on an exemption, the applicant must proactively raise it and prove it with evidence. Mr. Karim had failed to disclose his common-law relationship in previous IRCC applications, where he repeatedly declared himself “single.” * Timing Does Not Cure Non-Compliance: The fact that Mr. Karim had re-enrolled before the exclusion order was issued did not erase the fact that he had already been out of status for more than 150 days. * No Procedural Fairness Breach: CBSA officers are not obligated to explore every possible exemption or pathway for an individual unless the applicant raises it. The duty of fairness in inadmissibility interviews is relatively limited: the applicant must have a chance to respond to the allegations, but officers do not need to educate the applicant on possible defences.

--- ## Key Legal Takeaways

This ruling crystallizes several important principles for international students in Canada: * Non-Compliance Has Serious Consequences: Even temporary lapses in enrollment can trigger enforcement, including an exclusion order.
* Exemptions Must Be Proven: Students in relationships that might qualify as “common-law” or “spousal” cannot assume that IRCC/CBSA will identify and apply exemptions on their behalf. The onus is on the applicant to declare, document, and substantiate such relationships.
* Re-enrollment Is Not a Defence: Returning to studies after a gap does not retroactively erase the violation.
* CBSA and IRCC Are Entering a Stricter Era: This decision underscores that Canada is now moving toward active monitoring and strict enforcement of study permit conditions.

--- ## Why This Case Matters

For years, non-compliance with study permit conditions—such as dropping courses, taking unauthorized breaks, or switching to part-time studies—was often treated informally. This decision shows that those days are over. With growing scrutiny on the integrity of the International Student Program, enforcement is no longer hypothetical; it is being upheld at the Federal Court level.

International students, and the institutions and advisors who support them, should recognize this as a new era in compliance. Proactive legal advice, timely disclosure, and clear evidence of eligibility for any exemption will be critical in avoiding the harsh consequences of inadmissibility.

--- ## Final Word

The dismissal of Mr. Karim’s judicial review serves as a warning: study permits are conditional, and compliance is not optional. Those who fail to meet the conditions risk not just refusal of future applications, but active enforcement action—including removal from Canada.