Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 12689
Submitted: January 23, 2025 at 8:06:12 PM
First Name: Mingrui
Last Name: Li
Pronoun: He/Him
Student Number: 20474659
Email: 23xf74@queensu.ca
Degree Program: Bachelor of Computing
Plan: undecided
Level of Study: 1
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: CISC 121
Term: Fall
Year: 2024
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Wendy Powley
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: I am petitioning for an credit standing for my 2024 fall term course CISC 121 instructed by Professor Wendy Powley. I am registrated with QSAS, due to my disability------ mental health issue, as being diagnosed by Psychiatrist. the mental health issue has greatly impact my academic performance on the fall term, especially since my academic accommodations has not been put into place that time. The challenges include not being able to attend class sometimes, not being able to focus, feeling overwhelmed, not enough motivations to study. I am asking for credit standing for this courses specifically is because that I am not familiar with coding before so this course form a much bigger challenge for me, it is really hard to learn a completely different new thing when you are not mentally well. I did not drop this course earlier because I still wanted to stick on it and give it a try. However, the unstable mental health conditions has regularly disrupt my plans. My QSAS advisor advised me to ask for credit standing for this course so that it would not show the grade I got, which is C minus on that course on my transcript and will not be counter towards my GPA. my future plan is I will switch major to math or physic which I am more comfortable with and get psychotherapy set up for me.
Documentation
Professional Letter: Letter from Professional-33.pdf
Document: SKM_28724080614390.pdf
Documentation Detail: evalution from psychitrist
Decision Letters
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 343
Submitted: September 8, 2025 at 1:02:32 AM
Relevant Petition: 12689
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: CISC 121, Fall 2024 (Wendy Powley)
Appeal Grounds
Appeals to the Board of Studies must include a letter based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal (Appeal Regulation 3.4). What are the grounds you are basing your appeal on?
- The Associate Dean's decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as the Associate Dean failed to:
- Follow the university rules and regulations in a way that supported your right to a fair process.
- Make a reasonable decision in your appeal. A “reasonable” decision is one that is based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions.
Appeal Grounds Details: I am appealing the Associate Dean’s decision on the grounds that it was not reasonable and therefore did not follow the principles of procedural fairness
The Associate Dean’s decision was based on medical documentation that inaccurately suggested that I was able to manage my academics without significant impairment. This evidence was outdated and did not reflect my actual circumstances during the Fall 2024 term. Specifically, the documentation failed to capture the degree to which my mental health condition was significantly compromising my academic functioning during the course.
Since submitting my initial petition, I have obtained updated medical documentation from my psychiatrist at queens university. This document, explicitly states that my mental health challenges ranged from moderate to severe and had a substantial and debilitating impact on my academic performance, including my ability to attend class and complete coursework effectively.
Given this, the Associate Dean’s conclusion that there was no academic impact on my class attendance or performance was not supported by the full facts. The decision was therefore not reasonable, as it relied on incomplete and misleading evidence rather than the actual circumstances I faced.
I respectfully submit that the Board of Studies should reconsider my petition in light of this corrected medical documentation, which provides clear and compelling evidence of the extenuating circumstances that significantly impaired my academic performance
The Associate Dean’s decision was based on medical documentation that inaccurately suggested that I was able to manage my academics without significant impairment. This evidence was outdated and did not reflect my actual circumstances during the Fall 2024 term. Specifically, the documentation failed to capture the degree to which my mental health condition was significantly compromising my academic functioning during the course.
Since submitting my initial petition, I have obtained updated medical documentation from my psychiatrist at queens university. This document, explicitly states that my mental health challenges ranged from moderate to severe and had a substantial and debilitating impact on my academic performance, including my ability to attend class and complete coursework effectively.
Given this, the Associate Dean’s conclusion that there was no academic impact on my class attendance or performance was not supported by the full facts. The decision was therefore not reasonable, as it relied on incomplete and misleading evidence rather than the actual circumstances I faced.
I respectfully submit that the Board of Studies should reconsider my petition in light of this corrected medical documentation, which provides clear and compelling evidence of the extenuating circumstances that significantly impaired my academic performance
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I am writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision dated [insert date] regarding my Level One petition for Credit Standing in CISC 121 (Fall 2024). While I appreciate that my circumstances were considered, I respectfully submit that the decision was not reasonable, as it relied on outdated and incomplete documentation that did not accurately reflect the extent to which my mental health significantly impaired my academic performance during the term.
In the decision, the Associate Dean acknowledged the medical documentation I provided but concluded that it confirmed I was able to manage academics well and did not indicate academic impacts on attendance. This conclusion is unfortunately based on a document from the psychiatrist I saw during high school that was outdated and inaccurate by the time of the Fall 2024 term. At the time of petition, I did not realize that this document gave the impression that I was coping adequately with academics when, in fact, my condition was deteriorating. The result was that the decision was made on the basis of evidence that did not fully or fairly represent my situation.
Since then, I have obtained updated documentation from my psychiatrist, which clarifies my circumstances. This letter explicitly confirms that my mental health condition was moderate to severe, with substantial and debilitating impacts on my academic functioning,based on the psychiatrist meeting happened during fall term.Specifically, it identifies that my illness significantly affected my ability to attend classes consistently, complete coursework effectively, and perform at a level commensurate with my abilities. This evidence directly contradicts the interpretation in the Associate Dean’s letter that my condition did not impact my academic attendance or performance.
My updated documentation demonstrates precisely this: that my ability to succeed in CISC 121 was significantly impaired by factors beyond my control. By relying on incomplete and misleading evidence, the Associate Dean’s decision did not meet the standard of reasonableness, as it was not supported by the full facts available.
I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of Arts and Science transcripts and the need for petitions to be supported by clear evidence. It is precisely for this reason that I am submitting updated medical documentation that directly supports my case and corrects the misunderstanding that occurred at the Level One petition stage.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board of Studies overturn the Associate Dean’s decision and grant my petition for Credit Standing in CISC 121 (Fall 2024). I believe this is the fairest outcome given the documented and significant extenuating circumstances that affected my academic performance in this course.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my appeal.
I am writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision dated [insert date] regarding my Level One petition for Credit Standing in CISC 121 (Fall 2024). While I appreciate that my circumstances were considered, I respectfully submit that the decision was not reasonable, as it relied on outdated and incomplete documentation that did not accurately reflect the extent to which my mental health significantly impaired my academic performance during the term.
In the decision, the Associate Dean acknowledged the medical documentation I provided but concluded that it confirmed I was able to manage academics well and did not indicate academic impacts on attendance. This conclusion is unfortunately based on a document from the psychiatrist I saw during high school that was outdated and inaccurate by the time of the Fall 2024 term. At the time of petition, I did not realize that this document gave the impression that I was coping adequately with academics when, in fact, my condition was deteriorating. The result was that the decision was made on the basis of evidence that did not fully or fairly represent my situation.
Since then, I have obtained updated documentation from my psychiatrist, which clarifies my circumstances. This letter explicitly confirms that my mental health condition was moderate to severe, with substantial and debilitating impacts on my academic functioning,based on the psychiatrist meeting happened during fall term.Specifically, it identifies that my illness significantly affected my ability to attend classes consistently, complete coursework effectively, and perform at a level commensurate with my abilities. This evidence directly contradicts the interpretation in the Associate Dean’s letter that my condition did not impact my academic attendance or performance.
My updated documentation demonstrates precisely this: that my ability to succeed in CISC 121 was significantly impaired by factors beyond my control. By relying on incomplete and misleading evidence, the Associate Dean’s decision did not meet the standard of reasonableness, as it was not supported by the full facts available.
I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity of Arts and Science transcripts and the need for petitions to be supported by clear evidence. It is precisely for this reason that I am submitting updated medical documentation that directly supports my case and corrects the misunderstanding that occurred at the Level One petition stage.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board of Studies overturn the Associate Dean’s decision and grant my petition for Credit Standing in CISC 121 (Fall 2024). I believe this is the fairest outcome given the documented and significant extenuating circumstances that affected my academic performance in this course.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my appeal.
Documentation
Document: qu dis 1.pdf
History
Originally submitted January 23, 2025 at 8:06:12 PM.
| Field | Reference | Old Value | New Value | Note | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| status | N/A | Received | Incomplete | Kerri Andrews | 2025-02-04 6:06:27 PM | |
| status | N/A | Incomplete | In Review | Kerri Andrews | 2025-02-06 1:47:31 PM | |
| status | N/A | In Review | Denied | Kerri Andrews | 2025-03-03 10:13:56 AM | |
| associate_dean | N/A | Jenn Stephenson, Ph.D. | Kerri Andrews | 2025-03-03 10:13:56 AM | ||
| decision_letter | N/A | N/A | Decision letter sent | Kerri Andrews | 2025-03-03 10:14:42 AM | |
| new_appeal_level_2 | N/A | Level 2 | Level 2 Appeal ID: 343 | 23xf74 | 2025-09-08 1:02:32 AM | |
| status | N/A | Received | In Review | Kathrine Scott | 2025-09-17 3:26:14 PM | |
| status | N/A | In Review | ADA Amended Decision | Kathrine Scott | 2025-09-24 8:02:35 AM |

