Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

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