Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13879
Submitted: January 15, 2026 at 9:06:26 AM
First Name: Shayaan
Last Name: Saleem
Pronoun: He/Him
Preferred Name: Shayaan
Student Number: 20553076
Email: 25tk8@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BCMPH
Plan: COMP
Level of Study: 1
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Code: MATH 112
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Code: CISC 102
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Code: ECON 111
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 356
Submitted: March 24, 2026 at 6:52:01 AM
Relevant Petition: 13879
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Drop a course after the academic deadline: MATH 112, Fall 2025
Drop a course after the academic deadline: CISC 102, Fall 2025
Drop a course after the academic deadline: ECON 111, Fall 2025
Drop a course after the academic deadline: CISC 102, Fall 2025
Drop a course after the academic deadline: ECON 111, Fall 2025
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:
- 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 ground that the decision was not reasonable because it appears to have been based on an incomplete understanding of why the courses were not dropped prior to the deadline.
The decision letter states that it is unclear how my circumstances prevented me from dropping the courses earlier and references my academic engagement in another course as evidence that withdrawal was possible, and a lack of clarity as to why this course wasn’t affected. However, this conclusion does not fully account for the timing of information available to me, or for differences in course assessment structures. I believed, based on ongoing technical support with Intel staff stating they anticipated an early-December resolution for the issue, that my computer would be functional in time for preparation for final exams, which informed my decision to not withdraw before the December 2nd deadline. Confirmation that no solution would be found in time occurred only after the deadline had passed.
Additionally, the course cited as evidence of continued academic engagement relied primarily on assignment-based evaluations, without a final or mid-term exam, which allowed limited participation through short-term access to borrowed devices. In contrast, the courses I aimed to drop depended heavily on timed assessments, which require sustained device access for sufficient preparation. As a result, I believe the decision may not fully reflect the relevant context explaining my actions prior to the deadline, and I respectfully request reconsideration on this basis.
The decision letter states that it is unclear how my circumstances prevented me from dropping the courses earlier and references my academic engagement in another course as evidence that withdrawal was possible, and a lack of clarity as to why this course wasn’t affected. However, this conclusion does not fully account for the timing of information available to me, or for differences in course assessment structures. I believed, based on ongoing technical support with Intel staff stating they anticipated an early-December resolution for the issue, that my computer would be functional in time for preparation for final exams, which informed my decision to not withdraw before the December 2nd deadline. Confirmation that no solution would be found in time occurred only after the deadline had passed.
Additionally, the course cited as evidence of continued academic engagement relied primarily on assignment-based evaluations, without a final or mid-term exam, which allowed limited participation through short-term access to borrowed devices. In contrast, the courses I aimed to drop depended heavily on timed assessments, which require sustained device access for sufficient preparation. As a result, I believe the decision may not fully reflect the relevant context explaining my actions prior to the deadline, and I respectfully request reconsideration on this basis.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I respectfully submit this appeal of the Associate Dean's decision rejecting my petition to late drop MATH 112, CISC 102, and ECON 111 for the Fall 2025 term. This appeal addresses the reasoning mentioned in the decision letter, specifically the conclusion that it was unclear how my circumstances prevented me from dropping the course prior to the December 2nd deadline, and why my ability in CISC 124 wasn't affected.
I completely understand and respect the academic expectation that students evaluate the impact of extenuating circumstances and withdraw from courses before the stated deadline. However, I believe an important aspect of my situation, specifically the timing of the anticipated resolution to my technical problem and how it informed my decision-making, was not fully considered when assessing why I did not drop the courses earlier.
Beginning sometime in late September, my only computer became unusable due to display-driver issues that made my screen black during start-up. Throughout the term, I actively attempted to resolve the issue through personal troubleshooting, then multiple support cases with Intel. During a later support interaction, I was informed that replicating and diagnosing the issue could take until early December. Based on this, I reasonably believed that a solution would likely be identified before exams occurred.
Because the affected courses' grade weights relied heavily on final examinations, I believed that solving the issue in early December (as Intel support said) would still allow sufficient time to prepare and pass my various exams for these classes. My decision not to withdraw prior to the deadline was therefore based on an expectation, informed by Intel's technical support, that the situation was temporary and was going to be resolved soon. The confirmation that no solution had been found was only communicated to me on December 15th, after the drop deadline had been passed, and at a point where effective preparation for exams was no longer feasible.
The decision letter also acknowledges my demonstrated academic engagement in another Fall term course, CISC 124, as evidence that my circumstances did not prevent earlier withdrawal. I respectfully submit that this comparison doesn’t fully account for the important differences in course structure that relate directly to the impact of my technical difficulties.
CISC 123 did not include a midterm or final examination, and instead placed primary emphasis on longer-term assignments. As described in my original petition, I was able to, with difficulty, complete assignment-based work by occasionally borrowing a peer’s laptop for limited periods of time. This arrangement allowed me to work in short sessions on tasks that could be paused and resumed.
However, this workaround was not viable for time constrained quizzes/ exams preparation, which require sustained and reliable access to a computer. In fact, despite performing comparatively well on assignments in CISC 124, I performed poorly on the course’s quizzes, which were time-limited and dependent on consistent device access. This distinction in course structure demonstrates my performance varied according to assessment format rather than indicating the technical issue had a small impact.
In accordance with this, my continued engagement in CISC 124 reflected adaptation to assignment-based evaluations rather than an ability to function normally across all courses. The courses I requested a late drop for relied far more heavily on timed assessments and exams, making them disproportionately affected by my lack of computer access.
Additionally, as this was my first term of post-secondary education, I lacked prior experience with dropping courses and assessing how long-term technical disruptions might affect academic performance, or when it may be necessary to drop courses despite ongoing attempts to resolve a problem. My decision to continue staying enrolled in these courses was made in good faith based on the expectation that the issue would be resolved in sufficient time, due to the opinions of Intel staff, rather than a failure to consider the academic deadline.
My intention in this appeal is not to dispute academic policy, but to clarify the context behind my decision-making prior to the deadline. I respectfully ask the Board to consider whether, given the anticipated resolution timeline and the differing impact of the issue on courses due to course structure, the decision not to grant the petition may have been based on incomplete understanding of why I did not drop the courses before the deadline.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Shayaan Saleem
I respectfully submit this appeal of the Associate Dean's decision rejecting my petition to late drop MATH 112, CISC 102, and ECON 111 for the Fall 2025 term. This appeal addresses the reasoning mentioned in the decision letter, specifically the conclusion that it was unclear how my circumstances prevented me from dropping the course prior to the December 2nd deadline, and why my ability in CISC 124 wasn't affected.
I completely understand and respect the academic expectation that students evaluate the impact of extenuating circumstances and withdraw from courses before the stated deadline. However, I believe an important aspect of my situation, specifically the timing of the anticipated resolution to my technical problem and how it informed my decision-making, was not fully considered when assessing why I did not drop the courses earlier.
Beginning sometime in late September, my only computer became unusable due to display-driver issues that made my screen black during start-up. Throughout the term, I actively attempted to resolve the issue through personal troubleshooting, then multiple support cases with Intel. During a later support interaction, I was informed that replicating and diagnosing the issue could take until early December. Based on this, I reasonably believed that a solution would likely be identified before exams occurred.
Because the affected courses' grade weights relied heavily on final examinations, I believed that solving the issue in early December (as Intel support said) would still allow sufficient time to prepare and pass my various exams for these classes. My decision not to withdraw prior to the deadline was therefore based on an expectation, informed by Intel's technical support, that the situation was temporary and was going to be resolved soon. The confirmation that no solution had been found was only communicated to me on December 15th, after the drop deadline had been passed, and at a point where effective preparation for exams was no longer feasible.
The decision letter also acknowledges my demonstrated academic engagement in another Fall term course, CISC 124, as evidence that my circumstances did not prevent earlier withdrawal. I respectfully submit that this comparison doesn’t fully account for the important differences in course structure that relate directly to the impact of my technical difficulties.
CISC 123 did not include a midterm or final examination, and instead placed primary emphasis on longer-term assignments. As described in my original petition, I was able to, with difficulty, complete assignment-based work by occasionally borrowing a peer’s laptop for limited periods of time. This arrangement allowed me to work in short sessions on tasks that could be paused and resumed.
However, this workaround was not viable for time constrained quizzes/ exams preparation, which require sustained and reliable access to a computer. In fact, despite performing comparatively well on assignments in CISC 124, I performed poorly on the course’s quizzes, which were time-limited and dependent on consistent device access. This distinction in course structure demonstrates my performance varied according to assessment format rather than indicating the technical issue had a small impact.
In accordance with this, my continued engagement in CISC 124 reflected adaptation to assignment-based evaluations rather than an ability to function normally across all courses. The courses I requested a late drop for relied far more heavily on timed assessments and exams, making them disproportionately affected by my lack of computer access.
Additionally, as this was my first term of post-secondary education, I lacked prior experience with dropping courses and assessing how long-term technical disruptions might affect academic performance, or when it may be necessary to drop courses despite ongoing attempts to resolve a problem. My decision to continue staying enrolled in these courses was made in good faith based on the expectation that the issue would be resolved in sufficient time, due to the opinions of Intel staff, rather than a failure to consider the academic deadline.
My intention in this appeal is not to dispute academic policy, but to clarify the context behind my decision-making prior to the deadline. I respectfully ask the Board to consider whether, given the anticipated resolution timeline and the differing impact of the issue on courses due to course structure, the decision not to grant the petition may have been based on incomplete understanding of why I did not drop the courses before the deadline.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Shayaan Saleem
Documentation
Document: intelemail.png
Document: Screenshot 2026-03-24 064321.png
Document: email to QASS.png
I plan to submit additional documentation at a later date: Unfortunately, the communicated expectation for a solution expected early December was on an Intel support chat ticket, that I no longer have access to, but the email screenshot provided is the confirmation on December 15th (much later than expected) that no solution was found. The second screenshot outlines proof, ranging back to September 21st, that attempts to download DDU (display driver uninstaller) and new graphic drivers (which is the exact same solution recommended by Intel's staff in the given email) - these were attempted in a previous support ticket in Intel, where their support staff used QuickAssist to use my computer remotely. The last screenshot is an email to the queens arts and science student services team, to drop some of these courses as soon as I realized that it was getting too late (as the confirmation of no resolution took so long). I don't have any additional documentation to submit, just thought context was important for the documents I did submit.