Date: 20060224
Docket: IMM-4524-05
Citation: 2006 FC 252
Ottawa, Ontario, February
24, 2006
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOËL
BETWEEN:
BOCAR
HAWA EPSE MAIGA
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of a decision by a visa
officer (officer), dated July 15, 2005, denying the application for a
study permit of Hawa Epse Maiga Bocar (applicant).
[2]
Section 11
of the IRPA provides that a student visa is required to enter Canada for the
purpose of studying:
|
11.
(1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for
a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or
document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is
satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the
requirements of this Act.
|
11.
(1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent
les visa et autres documents requis par règlement, lesquels sont délivrés sur
preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, qu’il n’est pas interdit de territoire et
se conforme à la présente loi.
|
|
(2)
The officer may not issue a visa or other document to a foreign national
whose sponsor does not meet the sponsorship requirements of this Act.
|
(2)
Ils ne peuvent être délivrés à l’étranger dont le répondant ne se conforme
pas aux exigences applicables au parrainage.
|
|
20.
(1) Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in
section 19, who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish,
|
20.
(1) L’étranger non visé à l’article 19 qui cherche à entrer au Canada ou
à y séjourner est tenu de prouver :
|
|
(a)
to become a permanent resident, that they hold the visa or other document
required under the regulations and have come to Canada in order to establish
permanent residence; and
|
a) pour devenir un résident permanent, qu’il
détient les visa ou autres documents réglementaires et vient s’y établir en
permanence;
|
|
(b)
to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document
required under the regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period
authorized for their stay.
|
b) pour devenir un résident temporaire, qu’il
détient les visa ou autres documents requis par règlement et aura quitté le
Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée.
|
|
(2)
A foreign national referred to in subsection 9(1) must also establish,
to become a permanent resident, that they hold a document issued by the
province indicating that the competent authority of the province is of the
opinion that the foreign national complies with the province’s selection
criteria.
|
(2)
L’étranger visé au paragraphe 9(1) est tenu en outre, pour devenir
résident permanent, de prouver qu’il détient le document délivré par la
province en cause attestant que l’autorité compétente de celle-ci est d’avis
qu’il répond à ses critères de sélection.
|
|
30.
(1) A foreign national may not work or study in Canada unless authorized to
do so under this Act.
|
30.
(1) L’étranger ne peut exercer un emploi au Canada ou y étudier que sous le
régime de la présente loi.
|
|
.
. .
|
[...]
|
[3]
This visa
requirement is found elsewhere in the IRPA (see section 30) and in the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (IRPR) (see
sections 9, 212, 213 of the IRPR). The following sections and subsections
of the IRPR establish the criteria for granting a study permit:
|
216. (1) Subject to
subsections (2) and (3), an officer shall issue a study permit to a
foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the
foreign national
|
216. (1) Sous réserve des
paragraphes (2) et (3), l’agent délivre un permis d’études à l’étranger
si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis :
|
|
(a)
applied for it in accordance with this Part;
|
a) l’étranger a demandé un permis d’études
conformément à la présente partie;
|
|
(b)
will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under
Division 2 of Part 9;
|
b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période
de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la
partie 9;
|
|
(c)
meets the requirements of this Part; and
|
c) il remplit les exigences prévues à la
présente partie;
|
|
(d)
meets the requirements of section 30.
|
d) il satisfait aux exigences prévues à
l’article 30 [visite médicale].
|
|
220. An officer shall not issue a
study permit to a foreign national, other than one described in
paragraph 215(1)(d) or (e), unless they have sufficient
and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to
|
220. À l’exception des personnes
visées aux sous-alinéas 215(1)d) ou e), l’agent ne délivre
pas de permis d’études à l’étranger à moins que celui-ci ne dispose, sans
qu’il lui soit nécessaire d’exercer un emploi au Canada, de ressources
financières suffisantes pour :
|
|
(a)
pay the tuition fees for the course or program of studies that they intend to
pursue;
|
a) acquitter les frais de scolarité des cours
qu’il a l’intention de suivre;
|
|
(b)
maintain themself and any family members who are accompanying them during
their proposed period of study; and
|
b) subvenir à ses propres besoins et à ceux des
membres de sa famille qui l’accompagnent durant ses études;
|
|
(c)
pay the costs of transporting themself and the family members referred to in
paragraph (b) to and from Canada.
|
c) acquitter les frais de transport pour
lui-même et les membres de sa famille visés à l’alinéa b) pour
venir au Canada et en repartir.
|
[4]
The
appropriate standard of review for a decision by a visa officer depends
essentially on the kind of issue addressed. In Sadiki Ouafae v. Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, 2005 FC 459, de Montigny J. writes, at
paragraphs 18 to 20:
Opinion on
the appropriate standard of review for decisions by visa officers is divided
and appears to have spawned seemingly contradictory decisions. In some cases,
reasonableness simpliciter was the chosen standard . . . In other decisions,
patent unreasonableness was chosen instead . . .
And yet, on
closer inspection, these decisions are not irreconcilable. The reason for the
different choices is essentially that the nature of the decision under review
by this Court depends on the context. Thus it goes without saying that the
appropriate standard of review for a discretionary decision by a visa officer
assessing a prospective immigrant’s occupational experience is patent unreasonableness.
Where the visa officer’s decision is based on an assessment of the facts, this
Court will not intervene unless it can be shown that the decision is based on
an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
However, it
is not the same for a decision by a visa officer involving an application of
general principles under an Act or Regulations to specific circumstances. Where
the decision is based on a question of mixed law and fact, the Court will show
less deference and seek to ensure that the decision is quite simply reasonable.
[5]
This
approach was confirmed in the recent case Boni v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 68, at paragraphs 7 and 8. As the
issues addressed by the visa officer in this matter are questions of fact, the
appropriate standard is that of patent unreasonableness. The Court must not
intervene unless it can be established that the decision is based on an
erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
[6]
The
officer’s decision is based on the following grounds:
-
She was
not satisfied that the applicant has the financial means to pay her tuition and
her lodging during her stay in Canada, or to return to her country of habitual
residence;
-
She was
not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of the period
authorized for her stay. Specifically, the officer writes that she was not
persuaded that the ties with her country of habitual residence were
sufficiently strong to ensure her return after her stay in Canada;
-
The
officer is of the opinion that the applicant did not establish that her
academic profile suited the studies that she contemplated in Canada.
[7]
Regarding
the applicant’s financial resources, the record shows that the applicant gave
the officer incomplete evidence, such that it was not unreasonable for her to
find as she did. There are three bank statements in the record. The first did
not have a letterhead, the second had no information regarding the evolution of
the account over the five months preceding the application for a study permit
and the third was too recent to be able to appreciate the true state of the
applicant’s finances. Also, the records of employment submitted do not suggest
that the applicant or her husband have steady income. It was not unreasonable,
either, for the officer to express reservations regarding the statements of
employment and the land titles filed, since these documents, whether by reason
of their form or content, did not establish the applicant’s ability to fulfill her
financial obligations in Canada within the meaning of section 220 of the IRPR.
[8]
With
respect to the applicant’s ties with her country of habitual residence, it was
not unreasonable for the officer to find as she did, since one of the sons of
her husband’s family is himself in Canada, at the same university where the
applicant wants to study, and since the applicant has a co-wife in Mali who
could very well take care of the children in the event that she were to decide
to stay in Canada.
[9]
I do not
believe that there are grounds to intervene with respect to the appropriateness
of the applicant’s course of study (regarding the legality of this requirement,
see the recent decision in Boni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2005 FC 31, [2005] F.C.J. No. 43, at paragraph 25). In fact,
the applicant has an employment history that has little to do with her study
plan. However, it would be appropriate to amend the standard question form so
that the visa officer can determine as much about the academic profile as the
professional profile.
[10]
For these
reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The parties were
invited to propose questions for certification but no question was submitted.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
- The application for judicial
review be dismissed and no question is certified.
“Simon
Noël”
Certified
true translation
Kelley
A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
Email this Content