[1] Kausar Farooq Alvi is a citizen of Pakistan who applied to become a permanent resident of Canada on the strength of her qualifications as a Personnel and Recruitment Officer. Officials at the Canadian High Commission in Sri Lanka interviewed Ms. Alvi and informed her that her application would proceed, so long as medical and security checks were satisfactory. They told her that she appeared to have sufficient funds to settle in Canada, but asked her to provide written proof of them. Ultimately, a visa officer turned down her application because he was not satisfied with the documentation Ms. Alvi had provided with respect to the funds at her disposal. She argues that the officer made a serious error and asks me to order that her application be re-considered by a different officer. I have found no error on the officer's part and must, therefore, dismiss Ms. Alvi's application for judicial review.
[2] Ms. Alvi supplied documents showing that her husband's bank balance amounted to 651,000 rupees and that a parcel of land in his name was worth 1,200,000 rupees. The visa officer requested further information, including proof of the source of the funds. Ms. Alvi provided further bank documents and a copy of an agreement to sell the land for 835,000 rupees. The officer was not satisfied. He informed Ms. Alvi that she was not admissible to Canada because she had failed to provide proof that she would be able to support herself and her family in Canada: Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, s. 19(1)(b).
[3] The visa officer turned down Ms. Alvi's application based, at least in part, on a concern about the origin of the funds Ms. Alvi claimed to have available to her. The respondent suggested that there was another problem: that the assets were in Ms. Alvi's spouse's name, not hers. This may have troubled the officer to some degree, but the greater concern was clearly the source of the funds.
[4] Ms. Alvi argues that the visa officer had no authority to request information about the source of the funds. In turn, she suggests that an applicant who fails to provide that information should not be turned down on that basis alone.
[5] Ms. Alvi relies on the case of Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCT 604, [2003] F.C.J. No. 789 (QL) (T.D.) in which Justice O'Keefe held that visa officers have no authority under the Immigration Act or the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, to require applicants to provide information about the source of the funds they claim to have available to them. The respondent relies on a series of cases suggesting that inquiries into the origins of funds are permissible: Biao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 2 F.C. 348 (QL) (T.D.); Zhang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 663 (QL) (T.D.); Anfu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 FCT 395; Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001 FCT 837. Ms. Alvi argues that the respondent's authorities are all distinguishable because they deal with investors. Given that the definition of an "investor" under the Act specifically refers to the source of an applicant's funds, visa officers have clear authority to make inquiries in those cases.
[6] In my view, a visa officer is entitled to inquire about the origins of funds if that information is relevant for purposes of determining whether the funds are actually possessed by the applicant: Immigration Act, s. 9(3). This is a natural line of inquiry if the officer has a concern about the availability of the funds. However, that is not to say that an applicant's failure to provide the information requested is itself a sufficient basis for refusing the application. The overall question is whether sufficient funds are actually possessed by and available to the applicant for use on arrival in Canada. A visa officer may understandably feel that information about the origins of the funds would be helpful in answering that question. An applicant who does not provide the information requested risks failing to satisfy the officer's concerns. But the failure to provide the documents requested is not a free-standing ground for refusing an application, see: Yue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2003 FCT 423, [2002] F.C.J. No. 598 (QL) (T.D.), at para. 10.
[7] In this case, the officer was concerned about the availability of the funds and asked for information about their source. He did not receive that information. In the end, he decided that Ms. Alvi had failed to satisfy him that sufficient funds were actually available for use on arrival in Canada. He did not refuse the application solely because of Ms. Alvi's failure to provide information about the source of the funds, although the absence of information was clearly a factor in the officer's overall conclusion.
[8] In my view, the officer was within his authority to ask for proof of the source of funds and was entitled to conclude that the information before him did not amount to adequate proof that the funds were available to the applicant for purposes of settling in Canada. On this issue, the officer's conclusion is deserving of considerable deference; I find no basis to intervene in the exercise of his discretion.
[9] I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question of general importance is stated.
(Sgd.) "James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
| Immigration Act, 1985, c. I-2
Duty to answer questions
9. (3) Every person shall answer truthfully all questions put to that person by a visa officer and shall produce such documentation as may be required by the visa officer for the purpose of establishing that his admission would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations.
Inadmissible persons
19. (1) No person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes:
...
(b) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe are or will be unable or unwilling to support themselves and those persons who are dependent on them for care and support, except persons who have satisfied an immigration officer that adequate arrangements, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made for their care and support;
|
|
Loi sur l'Immigration, L.R.C. 1985, ch. I-2
Obligations
9. (3) Toute personne doit répondre franchement aux questions de l'agent des visas et produire toutes les pièces qu'exige celui-ci pour établir que son admission ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements.
Personnes non admissibles
19. (1) Les personnes suivantes appartiennent à une catégorie non admissible:
[...]
b) celles dont il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire qu'elles n'ont pas la capacité ou la volonté présente ou future de subvenir tant à leurs besoins qu'à ceux des personnes à leur charge et qui ne peuvent convaincre l'agent d'immigration que les dispositions nécessaires - n'impliquant pas l'aide sociale - ont été prises en vue d'assurer leur soutien;
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2351-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: KAUSAR FAROOQ ALVI v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 18, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: November 26, 2003
APPEARANCES:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Ms. Sabrina Tozzi
Green and Spiegal
121 King St., Suite 2200
Toronto ON M5H 3J9
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
TORONTO, ON
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content