Date : 20060407
Docket: IMM-5289-05
Citation: 2006 FC 454
Ottawa, Ontario, the
7th day of April 2006
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
MOHAMED
MERED
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review filed pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) of a decision by
Jean‑François Renaud, officer at the Canadian embassy in Paris (the
officer) denying the applicant’s temporary resident visa application for study
purposes.
I. Issue
[2]
Was the
officer’s decision patently unreasonable?
II. Background Facts
[4]
The
applicant is a citizen of Algeria, born in Oran on August 28, 1982.
[5]
The
applicant finished secondary school in 2001, and applied for a Canadian study
permit on June 21, 2005.
[6]
The
applicant’s sister, Samia Mered, applied for a Canadian study permit on
his behalf, because he had been unable to obtain a visa to go to France.
[7]
Mr. Rafik Mered,
the applicant’s brother, contacted the Université de Montréal and the Ministère
de l’Immigration et des Communautés culturelles in Quebec for the applicant to
obtain a Certificat d’Acceptation du Québec (CAQ).
[8]
Mr. Rafik Mered
was granted refugee status in Canada in 2001, and Samia Mered and her
brother Mr. Karim Mered applied for permanent resident visas in the
skilled worker category. The applicant’s mother lives in Algeria.
III. Impugned
Decision
[9]
In a
letter dated June 30, 2005, the officer informed the applicant that
his application had been denied. The officer stated that he was not satisfied
that the applicant’s study plans in Canada were serious and coherent and that
he intended to leave Canada at the end of the authorized period.
[10]
The
officer’s notes in the Computer‑Assisted Immigration Processing System
(CAIPS) indicate the following:
·
The
applicant completed secondary school in Algeria in 2001, and pursued no other
studies as of that date;
·
The
applicant’s brother applied for refugee status in Canada in 2001;
·
The
applicant’s sister told the officer that the family was moving to Canada and
that they could not leave him behind to study in Algeria;
·
When the
officer expressed doubts as to the applicant’s intention to return to Algeria
she said that the applicant intended to return to Algeria after his studies to
look after his mother’s property.
IV. Analysis
[11]
Section 20(1)(b)
of the Act provides as follows:
|
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 :
|
|
. .
.
|
[…]
|
|
(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.
|
[12]
The
officer’s decision is discretionary and his findings as to the seriousness of
the applicant’s study plans and his intention to leave Canada after his studies
are questions of fact. This Court should only intervene in cases where a
patently unreasonable error was made. (Boni v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 31, [2005] F.C.J.
No. 43 (F.C.T.D.) and confirmed by
2006 FCA 68, [2006] F.C.J. No. 275 (FCA) (QL).
[13]
The
applicant argued that it was unreasonable for the officer to reject his
application. He submitted that the fact that his brother Rafik had obtained
refugee status in Canada and that his other brother and his sister intended to
immigrate to Canada did not justify the officer’s findings to the effect that
the applicant’s study plans in Canada were not serious and that he did not
intend to return to Algeria at the end of his studies.
[14]
The
applicant also said that the mention made of his brother Rafik’s refugee claim
in the officer’s CAIPS notes showed that the officer focused unduly on this
fact, which was irrelevant.
[15]
Despite
the applicant’s arguments, the record shows that additional information are
mentioned such as « the applicant completed secondary school in Algeria in
2001, and pursued no other studies as of that date » as well as the
mention made of the applicant’s brother’s refugee claim in the CAIPS notes.
[16]
The
applicant’s family situation was therefore but one of many factors assessed by
the officer. The fact that the applicant interrupted his studies in 2001 and
could have pursued the same studies in Algeria was also considered by the
officer. Nevertheless, the main reasons for the rejection are mentioned in the
decision; in other words, the officer was not satisfied that the applicant’s
study plans in Canada were serious and coherent.
[17]
The
applicant’s sister’s responses regarding the intention of several family
members to settle in Canada for good were not determining factors, but it was
not unreasonable for the officer to consider them in his overall assessment of
the applicant’s request for a study permit.
[18]
The
parties stated that there was no question for certification. This application
does not give rise to any.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for
judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Certified
true translation
François
Brunet, LLB, BCL
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5289-05
STYLE
OF CAUSE: MOHAMED MERED
v.
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND MMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 4, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
DATED: April 7, 2006
APPEARANCES:
William Sloan FOR
THE APPLICANT
Steve Bell FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
William Sloan FOR
THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR
THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content