Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 14035
Submitted: February 17, 2026 at 1:27:05 PM
First Name: Razi
Last Name: Almasri
Pronoun: He
Preferred Name: Razi Almasri
Student Number: 20557620
Email: r.almasri@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BSc
Plan: LISC
Level of Study: 1
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Drop a course after the academic deadline, Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: MATH 130
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Peter Taylor
Section/Class Number: 001
Code: PHYS 115
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Petition Letter
Petition Letter: To the Associate Dean (Academic),
I am writing to submit a First-Level Petition to request Credit (CR) Standing in MATH 130 (Fall 2025) and a Late Drop for PHYS 115 (Fall 2025) due to documented extenuating circumstances that significantly affected my academic performance during the beginning of my first term.
During the early portion of the Fall 2025 term, I went through a displacement issue while living in residence. This disruption negatively impacted my mental health and my ability to perform my academic tasks to the fullest, and maintain academic consistency during a critical adjustment period in my first year. As a result, my academic performance during this time did not reflect my usual capabilities or the level of work I had intended to put out and maintain.
In MATH 130, although I completed all required components of the course and achieved a passing grade, the circumstances described above substantially affected my performance. This is why I would like to respectfully request Credit (CR) Standing in this course, as the grade earned does not accurately reflect my academic ability under normal conditions.
In PHYS 115, the same circumstances significantly interfered with my ability to perform to standard. I am respectfully requesting a Late Drop for this course, as the extenuating circumstances during the term impaired my ability to keep up with classwork, deadlines, and successfully complete it.
Since the Fall term, I have taken concrete steps to improve my academic performance and ensure that similar challenges do not affect my work moving forward. I have implemented a structured daily schedule, developed weekly planning systems with organized to-do lists, and created a detailed academic calendar that tracks all course deadlines and assessments. In addition, I have proactively sought tutoring support to strengthen my understanding of course material. These measures have allowed me to better manage my time, maintain consistency in my coursework, and approach my studies with improved structure, focus and accountability.
The circumstances that affected my Fall performance were temporary and specific to that period. I am confident that the systems and support methods I now have in place will allow me to continue progressing successfully in my program.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this petition.
Sincerely,
Razi K. Almasri
Student Number: 20557620
I am writing to submit a First-Level Petition to request Credit (CR) Standing in MATH 130 (Fall 2025) and a Late Drop for PHYS 115 (Fall 2025) due to documented extenuating circumstances that significantly affected my academic performance during the beginning of my first term.
During the early portion of the Fall 2025 term, I went through a displacement issue while living in residence. This disruption negatively impacted my mental health and my ability to perform my academic tasks to the fullest, and maintain academic consistency during a critical adjustment period in my first year. As a result, my academic performance during this time did not reflect my usual capabilities or the level of work I had intended to put out and maintain.
In MATH 130, although I completed all required components of the course and achieved a passing grade, the circumstances described above substantially affected my performance. This is why I would like to respectfully request Credit (CR) Standing in this course, as the grade earned does not accurately reflect my academic ability under normal conditions.
In PHYS 115, the same circumstances significantly interfered with my ability to perform to standard. I am respectfully requesting a Late Drop for this course, as the extenuating circumstances during the term impaired my ability to keep up with classwork, deadlines, and successfully complete it.
Since the Fall term, I have taken concrete steps to improve my academic performance and ensure that similar challenges do not affect my work moving forward. I have implemented a structured daily schedule, developed weekly planning systems with organized to-do lists, and created a detailed academic calendar that tracks all course deadlines and assessments. In addition, I have proactively sought tutoring support to strengthen my understanding of course material. These measures have allowed me to better manage my time, maintain consistency in my coursework, and approach my studies with improved structure, focus and accountability.
The circumstances that affected my Fall performance were temporary and specific to that period. I am confident that the systems and support methods I now have in place will allow me to continue progressing successfully in my program.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this petition.
Sincerely,
Razi K. Almasri
Student Number: 20557620
Documentation
Professional Letter: RA Letter of Support Feb 2026.pdf
Decision Letters
Level 1 Status
Status: Partial GrantLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 364
Submitted: April 30, 2026 at 2:16:32 PM
Relevant Petition: 14035
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: MATH 130, Fall 2025 (Peter Taylor)
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 grounds that the Associate Dean's decision was unreasonable and failed to meet the standard of procedural fairness, specifically:
1. The decision did not give meaningful reasons supported by evidence and logical inference. The Associate Dean identified a lack of documentation linking my circumstances to the post-Reading Week period, but did not engage with the evidence that was present. Including active Student Affairs support throughout the Fall 2025 term, from which such a connection could reasonably be inferred.
2. The decision gave disproportionate and dispositive weight to a single factor (the grade timeline) without adequate reasoning as to why this outweighed the totality of the supporting documentation.
3. New evidence, in the form of two formal communications from the Queen's University Student Conduct Office dated September 16, 2025 and November 17, 2025, directly resolves the evidentiary gap cited by the Associate Dean and was not available at the time of the original decision.
1. The decision did not give meaningful reasons supported by evidence and logical inference. The Associate Dean identified a lack of documentation linking my circumstances to the post-Reading Week period, but did not engage with the evidence that was present. Including active Student Affairs support throughout the Fall 2025 term, from which such a connection could reasonably be inferred.
2. The decision gave disproportionate and dispositive weight to a single factor (the grade timeline) without adequate reasoning as to why this outweighed the totality of the supporting documentation.
3. New evidence, in the form of two formal communications from the Queen's University Student Conduct Office dated September 16, 2025 and November 17, 2025, directly resolves the evidentiary gap cited by the Associate Dean and was not available at the time of the original decision.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I am writing to appeal the decision of Associate Dean Dorit Naaman, dated March 23, 2026, denying my petition for Credit Standing in MATH 130 (F25). I respectfully submit that the decision was unreasonable and did not meet the standard of procedural fairness, in that the reasons given were not adequately supported by the evidence and did not reflect a complete consideration of the record before the decision maker.
I. The Decision Did Not Give Adequate Reasons Supported by Evidence
The Associate Dean denied my petition on the basis that the documentation submitted did not connect my extenuating circumstances to the specific period after Reading Week when my grades declined. However, the record included documentation from Student Affairs confirming active support throughout the Fall 2025 term, as well as my petition letter describing the ongoing nature of my displacement from residence. A reasonable assessment of this evidence would have acknowledged that displacement is not a fixed, time-limited event. Its academic consequences can intensify over the course of a term as course demands increase and the instability remains unresolved. The decision did not engage with this possibility, and provided no reasoning for why the evidence present was insufficient to support such an inference. This falls short of the requirement that decisions be based on evidence, logical inference, and adequate reasons.
II. Disproportionate Weight Was Placed on the Grade Timeline
The Associate Dean treated the instructor's observation that performance was stronger earlier in the term and declined after Reading Week as evidence against my petition. With respect, this is not a logical inference from the facts. A student may demonstrate resilience early in a term while an extenuating circumstance is ongoing, only for the cumulative toll of that circumstance to manifest in academic decline as pressures compound. The decision did not address this reasonable possibility, and treating the timing of my grade decline as dispositive without further reasoning does not reflect a fair and complete assessment of my circumstances.
III. Retroactive Documentation Was Not Assessed Fairly
The decision did not account for the practical reality that students experiencing displacement are often unable to secure contemporaneous documentation due to the very instability underlying their petition. Retroactive documentation is a recognized and accepted part of the petitions process. The decision provided no explanation for why the February 17, 2026 documentation was treated as insufficient solely on the basis of its date.
IV. New Evidence Directly Addresses the Evidentiary Gap
I submit with this appeal formal communications from the Queen's University Student Conduct Office, which were not before the Associate Dean at the time of the original decision. These documents confirm that a formal conduct matter arising from circumstances connected to my displacement from residence was opened on September 16, 2025, remained actively under investigation through October 2025, and concluded with a formal decision on November 17, 2025. This places an ongoing, institutionally documented stressor directly within the post-Reading Week period the Associate Dean identified as unexplained. This evidence satisfies the evidentiary standard under Regulation 1.1 and resolves the specific gap cited as the basis for denial.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board of Studies conduct a fresh review of my petition, giving full and fair consideration to the complete evidentiary record, including the newly submitted documentation.
Respectfully submitted,
Razi Almasri
Student Number: 20557620
I am writing to appeal the decision of Associate Dean Dorit Naaman, dated March 23, 2026, denying my petition for Credit Standing in MATH 130 (F25). I respectfully submit that the decision was unreasonable and did not meet the standard of procedural fairness, in that the reasons given were not adequately supported by the evidence and did not reflect a complete consideration of the record before the decision maker.
I. The Decision Did Not Give Adequate Reasons Supported by Evidence
The Associate Dean denied my petition on the basis that the documentation submitted did not connect my extenuating circumstances to the specific period after Reading Week when my grades declined. However, the record included documentation from Student Affairs confirming active support throughout the Fall 2025 term, as well as my petition letter describing the ongoing nature of my displacement from residence. A reasonable assessment of this evidence would have acknowledged that displacement is not a fixed, time-limited event. Its academic consequences can intensify over the course of a term as course demands increase and the instability remains unresolved. The decision did not engage with this possibility, and provided no reasoning for why the evidence present was insufficient to support such an inference. This falls short of the requirement that decisions be based on evidence, logical inference, and adequate reasons.
II. Disproportionate Weight Was Placed on the Grade Timeline
The Associate Dean treated the instructor's observation that performance was stronger earlier in the term and declined after Reading Week as evidence against my petition. With respect, this is not a logical inference from the facts. A student may demonstrate resilience early in a term while an extenuating circumstance is ongoing, only for the cumulative toll of that circumstance to manifest in academic decline as pressures compound. The decision did not address this reasonable possibility, and treating the timing of my grade decline as dispositive without further reasoning does not reflect a fair and complete assessment of my circumstances.
III. Retroactive Documentation Was Not Assessed Fairly
The decision did not account for the practical reality that students experiencing displacement are often unable to secure contemporaneous documentation due to the very instability underlying their petition. Retroactive documentation is a recognized and accepted part of the petitions process. The decision provided no explanation for why the February 17, 2026 documentation was treated as insufficient solely on the basis of its date.
IV. New Evidence Directly Addresses the Evidentiary Gap
I submit with this appeal formal communications from the Queen's University Student Conduct Office, which were not before the Associate Dean at the time of the original decision. These documents confirm that a formal conduct matter arising from circumstances connected to my displacement from residence was opened on September 16, 2025, remained actively under investigation through October 2025, and concluded with a formal decision on November 17, 2025. This places an ongoing, institutionally documented stressor directly within the post-Reading Week period the Associate Dean identified as unexplained. This evidence satisfies the evidentiary standard under Regulation 1.1 and resolves the specific gap cited as the basis for denial.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board of Studies conduct a fresh review of my petition, giving full and fair consideration to the complete evidentiary record, including the newly submitted documentation.
Respectfully submitted,
Razi Almasri
Student Number: 20557620
Documentation
Document: Screenshot 2026-04-30 140803.png
Document: Screenshot 2026-04-30 140906.png
Document: Screenshot 2026-04-30 140926.png
Document: Screenshot 2026-04-30 140954.png
History
Originally submitted February 17, 2026 at 1:27:05 PM.
| Field | Reference | Old Value | New Value | Note | User | Date/Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| status | N/A | Received | Incomplete | waiting on instructor input | Kerri Andrews | 2026-02-18 12:05:01 PM |
| status | N/A | Incomplete | In Review | Kerri Andrews | 2026-02-24 11:36:18 AM | |
| status | N/A | In Review | Partial Grant | Kerri Andrews | 2026-03-23 11:59:46 AM | |
| associate_dean | N/A | Dorit Naaman (Associate Dean Academic) | Kerri Andrews | 2026-03-23 11:59:46 AM | ||
| decision_letter | N/A | N/A | Decision letter sent | Kerri Andrews | 2026-03-23 12:00:21 PM | |
| new_appeal_level_2 | N/A | Level 2 | Level 2 Appeal ID: 364 | 25lws1 | 2026-04-30 2:16:32 PM | |
| status | N/A | Received | In Review | Kathrine Scott | 2026-05-06 1:10:41 PM |