Date: 20061124
Docket: IMM-1281-06
Citation: 2006
FC 1428
Ottawa, Ontario, November
24, 2006
PRESENT: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LASHKINDER
SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Lashkinder
Singh, a 27-year old citizen of India,
has failed to establish any reviewable error in this application for judicial
review of the third refusal by a different visa officer to grant his request
for a student visa. Mr. Singh’s two previous requests were also refused. The second
refusal was set aside on judicial review.
[2]
Counsel
for the applicant, after some hesitation, conceded that the visa officer’s
CAIPS notes constitute reasons: Chou v. Canada (MCI), [2000] F.C.J. No.
314 (T.D.); Mohamed v. Canada (MCI), 2001 FCT 905; Bonilla v. Canada
(MCI), [2001] F.C.J. No. 29 (T.D.); Kalra v. Canada (MCI), 2003 FC
941 at para. 15; Singh v. Canada (MCI),
2006 FC 315; Toma v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 779; and Wang v.
Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 1298 at para. 22. In my view, the CAIPS notes in this
proceeding disclose adequate reasons to justify the visa officer’s decision.
[3]
The visa
officer raised one principal concern with Mr. Singh. He questioned the
credibility of the applicant’s choice of academic institution in British Columbia to pursue a business
administration course. Apparently, that institution was no longer registered
with the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, the statutory body
responsible to regulate private colleges in that province. Mr. Singh had very
little information to offer the visa officer concerning his choice of college.
The visa officer did not accept the applicant’s explanation that he wanted to
obtain a post-graduate diploma from an internationally recognized institution
as opposed to one in India. In the opinion of the visa
officer, the college chosen by the applicant in British Columbia could not offer such international
recognition.
[4]
The
Applicant had the burden to establish with the visa officer that he was a bona
fide student and, in this proceeding, to identify the visa officer’s error.
In principle, the Applicant should have been in a position to respond to the
visa officer’s concerns with respect to his choice of educational institution
during the interview. He did not seek a further opportunity to do so.
[5]
During the
hearing of this proceeding, the applicant’s attempt to introduce new evidence,
apparently received one or two days earlier, concerning the educational
institution was doomed to fail. The visa officer supported his CAIPS notes by
filing his first affidavit on May 2, 2006, and a supplementary affidavit on
September 18, 2006. The respondent also filed a further memorandum of law.
There was no cross-examination concerning either affidavit and, in addition,
the applicant filed neither his own affidavit nor a supplementary memorandum of
fact and law. If the applicant has new information concerning the institution,
he may consider the advisability of submitting a further application for a
student visa on the basis of this new evidence.
[6]
In the
circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the negative decision of the
visa officer was not unreasonable, let alone patently unreasonable.
Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither
party suggested the certification of a serious question.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial
review is dismissed.
“Allan
Lutfy”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1281-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: LASHKINDER
SINGH v. MCI
PLACE OF
HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF
HEARING: November
15, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: THE CHIEF
JUSTICE
DATED: November
24, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Baldev S. Sandhu
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Mr. Scott
Nesbitt
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Sandhu Law
Office
Surrey, BC
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Mr. John H.
Simms, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content