Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 14288
Submitted: May 11, 2026 at 12:09:48 PM
First Name: SAMUEL
Last Name: Asenuga
Pronoun: he/him
Student Number: 20411789
Email: 22pg44@queensu.ca
Degree Program: Artsci
Plan: Biol
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: CHEM222
Term: Winter
Year: 2026
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Dr.Lee
Section/Class Number: 03
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 370
Submitted: June 28, 2026 at 12:53:00 PM
Relevant Petition: 14288
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: CHEM222, Winter 2026 (Dr.Lee)
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 on the grounds that the Associate Dean’s decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness and was not reasonable, as required under Appeal Regulation 3.4.
1. The decision was not reasonable because it was not based on evidence, facts, or logical inferences.
Queen’s regulations define extenuating circumstances as significant physical or psychological events that are unexpected, beyond a student’s control, and debilitating to academic performance. The documentation I submitted clearly confirmed the timing, severity, and academic impact of the psychological event I experienced. The decision minimizes this documented impairment and does not logically apply the university’s own definition of extenuating circumstances. This constitutes an unreasonable conclusion not supported by the evidence provided.
2. The decision misapplied the regulations by expecting uniform impairment across all course components.
The Associate Dean stated that my documentation “does not indicate that my academic performance in the remaining components of the course was similarly impacted.” This reasoning is not supported by policy. Extenuating circumstances do not need to affect every assessment equally; they must demonstrate impairment of the specific academic requirement being petitioned. The expectation of equal impact across all assessments is inconsistent with the regulations and represents a failure to apply the rules in a way that supports a fair process.
3. The decision did not adequately consider the timing alignment between the documented event and the decline in my academic performance.
The documentation clearly supports that the psychological event occurred during the exact period when my academic performance declined. This temporal connection is a key criterion for petitions. The decision does not address this alignment, resulting in a conclusion that is not logically supported by the facts.
4. The decision’s reference to “fairness and consistency” is not supported by reasons or evidence.
Fairness requires that mental‑health documentation be evaluated with the same seriousness as physical illness. The decision appears to hold psychological documentation to a higher evidentiary standard, which is inconsistent with equitable application of university regulations. The lack of adequate reasons explaining how fairness was applied constitutes a breach of procedural fairness.
5. The decision does not reflect a fair application of the petition process.
My petition was narrow, reasonable, and directly tied to the documented circumstances. The decision does not demonstrate that the regulations were applied in a manner that supported my right to a fair and evidence‑based process.
For these reasons, the Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable, not supported by the evidence, and did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. I respectfully request that the Board of Studies overturn the decision.
1. The decision was not reasonable because it was not based on evidence, facts, or logical inferences.
Queen’s regulations define extenuating circumstances as significant physical or psychological events that are unexpected, beyond a student’s control, and debilitating to academic performance. The documentation I submitted clearly confirmed the timing, severity, and academic impact of the psychological event I experienced. The decision minimizes this documented impairment and does not logically apply the university’s own definition of extenuating circumstances. This constitutes an unreasonable conclusion not supported by the evidence provided.
2. The decision misapplied the regulations by expecting uniform impairment across all course components.
The Associate Dean stated that my documentation “does not indicate that my academic performance in the remaining components of the course was similarly impacted.” This reasoning is not supported by policy. Extenuating circumstances do not need to affect every assessment equally; they must demonstrate impairment of the specific academic requirement being petitioned. The expectation of equal impact across all assessments is inconsistent with the regulations and represents a failure to apply the rules in a way that supports a fair process.
3. The decision did not adequately consider the timing alignment between the documented event and the decline in my academic performance.
The documentation clearly supports that the psychological event occurred during the exact period when my academic performance declined. This temporal connection is a key criterion for petitions. The decision does not address this alignment, resulting in a conclusion that is not logically supported by the facts.
4. The decision’s reference to “fairness and consistency” is not supported by reasons or evidence.
Fairness requires that mental‑health documentation be evaluated with the same seriousness as physical illness. The decision appears to hold psychological documentation to a higher evidentiary standard, which is inconsistent with equitable application of university regulations. The lack of adequate reasons explaining how fairness was applied constitutes a breach of procedural fairness.
5. The decision does not reflect a fair application of the petition process.
My petition was narrow, reasonable, and directly tied to the documented circumstances. The decision does not demonstrate that the regulations were applied in a manner that supported my right to a fair and evidence‑based process.
For these reasons, the Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable, not supported by the evidence, and did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. I respectfully request that the Board of Studies overturn the decision.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I am writing to formally appeal the decision made by the Associate Dean regarding my recent academic petition. I respectfully request that the Board reconsider this decision, as it does not accurately reflect the nature of the extenuating circumstances I experienced, nor does it reasonably apply the regulations governing petitions within the Faculty of Arts and Science.
My petition was submitted in response to a significant and unexpected psychological event that occurred during the term. This event was beyond my control and had a direct, debilitating impact on my academic functioning. Queen’s University regulations clearly define extenuating circumstances as serious physical or psychological events that impair a student’s ability to meet academic requirements. The documentation I provided confirmed the timing, severity, and academic impact of the circumstances I faced. Despite this, the decision letter minimizes the seriousness of the documented impairment and does not apply the Faculty’s definition of extenuating circumstances in a reasonable or consistent manner.
The Associate Dean’s decision states that my documentation “does not indicate that my academic performance in the remaining components of the course was similarly impacted.” This reasoning is not supported by the regulations. Extenuating circumstances do not need to affect every assessment equally; they must demonstrate impairment of the specific academic requirement being petitioned. My documentation clearly supports that the psychological event occurred during the exact period when my academic performance declined. The expectation of uniform impairment across all assessments is inconsistent with the purpose of the petition process and represents an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence.
Furthermore, the decision does not adequately consider the temporal alignment between the documented event and the decline in my academic performance. The psychological event occurred during late January and the weeks following—precisely when my academic functioning deteriorated. This alignment is a key criterion for petitions, yet the decision does not address it. As a result, the conclusion reached is not logically supported by the facts provided.
The decision also cites “fairness and consistency” as grounds for denial. However, the reasoning does not explain how these principles were applied. Fairness requires that mental‑health documentation be evaluated with the same seriousness as physical illness. The decision appears to hold psychological documentation to a higher evidentiary standard, which is inconsistent with equitable application of university policy. Without adequate reasons explaining how fairness was considered, the decision does not meet the standard of procedural transparency required under Appeal Regulation 3.4.
My petition was narrow, reasonable, and directly tied to the documented circumstances. I did not request relief unrelated to the event, nor did I seek to alter assessments unaffected by the impairment. I took responsible steps to address the situation, sought support, and continued to meet my academic responsibilities to the best of my ability. The petition process exists to provide relief in situations where unexpected and debilitating events impair academic performance. My circumstances fit this purpose precisely.
For these reasons, I believe the Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable, was not supported by the evidence provided, and did not follow the rules of procedural fairness required by university regulations. I respectfully request that the Board of Studies overturn the decision and grant the relief originally sought in my petition.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Samuel Asenuga
I am writing to formally appeal the decision made by the Associate Dean regarding my recent academic petition. I respectfully request that the Board reconsider this decision, as it does not accurately reflect the nature of the extenuating circumstances I experienced, nor does it reasonably apply the regulations governing petitions within the Faculty of Arts and Science.
My petition was submitted in response to a significant and unexpected psychological event that occurred during the term. This event was beyond my control and had a direct, debilitating impact on my academic functioning. Queen’s University regulations clearly define extenuating circumstances as serious physical or psychological events that impair a student’s ability to meet academic requirements. The documentation I provided confirmed the timing, severity, and academic impact of the circumstances I faced. Despite this, the decision letter minimizes the seriousness of the documented impairment and does not apply the Faculty’s definition of extenuating circumstances in a reasonable or consistent manner.
The Associate Dean’s decision states that my documentation “does not indicate that my academic performance in the remaining components of the course was similarly impacted.” This reasoning is not supported by the regulations. Extenuating circumstances do not need to affect every assessment equally; they must demonstrate impairment of the specific academic requirement being petitioned. My documentation clearly supports that the psychological event occurred during the exact period when my academic performance declined. The expectation of uniform impairment across all assessments is inconsistent with the purpose of the petition process and represents an unreasonable interpretation of the evidence.
Furthermore, the decision does not adequately consider the temporal alignment between the documented event and the decline in my academic performance. The psychological event occurred during late January and the weeks following—precisely when my academic functioning deteriorated. This alignment is a key criterion for petitions, yet the decision does not address it. As a result, the conclusion reached is not logically supported by the facts provided.
The decision also cites “fairness and consistency” as grounds for denial. However, the reasoning does not explain how these principles were applied. Fairness requires that mental‑health documentation be evaluated with the same seriousness as physical illness. The decision appears to hold psychological documentation to a higher evidentiary standard, which is inconsistent with equitable application of university policy. Without adequate reasons explaining how fairness was considered, the decision does not meet the standard of procedural transparency required under Appeal Regulation 3.4.
My petition was narrow, reasonable, and directly tied to the documented circumstances. I did not request relief unrelated to the event, nor did I seek to alter assessments unaffected by the impairment. I took responsible steps to address the situation, sought support, and continued to meet my academic responsibilities to the best of my ability. The petition process exists to provide relief in situations where unexpected and debilitating events impair academic performance. My circumstances fit this purpose precisely.
For these reasons, I believe the Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable, was not supported by the evidence provided, and did not follow the rules of procedural fairness required by university regulations. I respectfully request that the Board of Studies overturn the decision and grant the relief originally sought in my petition.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Samuel Asenuga