Date: 20100629
Docket: IMM-5108-09
Citation: 2010
FC 707
Toronto, Ontario, June 29, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
LEADBETTER KWESI KUEWOR
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
present Application concerns the rejection by the Visa Post in Accra, Ghana of the Applicant’s request for a
visa to visit Canada. On the record presented to
the Visa Post the Applicant supplied cogent evidence that he is: a 27 year old citizen
of Ghana; a mature student with sound academic background; a member of a family
in which his parents and three siblings reside in Ghana; a person with an
employment record dating back to 2002 who is currently employed and has been
granted leave by his current employer to visit Canada; an invitee to visit
Canada by a responsible person employed by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of
Toronto who is willing to sponsor the visit to Canada by providing room and
board and a return airline ticket to Ghana; and, importantly, is a person who has
the support of a member of Parliament of the Government of Ghana in obtaining
the visa requested.
[2]
In
assessing the Applicant’s application for the visa it appears that a person at
the Visa Post screened the Applicant’s application and came to the following highly
debatable conclusions about its worth:
APP IS NOT WELL ESTABLISHED.
SHOW UNSTABLE EMPLOYMENT. CANNOT AFFORD TRIP ON HIS OWN. SHOWS LIMITED FUNDS.
HAS NO PREVIOUS TRAVEL. DOES NOT SHOW STRONG TIES IN GHANA.
(CAIPS Notes, Tribunal Record,
p. 22)
However, the Visa Officer who made the decision under review
makes the following statement in the CAIPS Notes:
I HAVE REVIEWED THE INFORMATION ON FILE.
NO TRAVEL HISTORY, FUNDS REQUIRED FOR
TRIP REPRESENT A LARGE EXPENDITURE RELATIVE TO EARNINGS. I AM NOT SATISFIED
WELL ESTABLISHED IN INDIA AND WOULD HAVE INCENTIVE TO
DEPART CDA FOLLOWING ADMISSION.
I HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE LEVEL
OF ESTABLISHMENT OF INVITORS IN CDA. HOWEVER IN THIS CASE I AM PLACING MORE
WEIGHT ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUBJ IN HOME COUNTRY. ON THE BASIS OF THE
INFORMATION PROVIDED, I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT SUBJ MEETS REQUIREMENTS FOR
ISSUANCE.
[Emphasis added]
(Tribunal Record, p.22)
The statement that the Visa Officer is “not satisfied well
established in India” leaves a grave doubt as to
what evidence was in fact examined in reaching the decision under review. As a
result of this statement, and indeed the glib nature of the reasons themselves,
I find that the evidence presented in support of the visa application is
disconnected from the reasons provided for rejecting the application. To have
properly decided on the visa application, it was necessary for the Visa Officer
to carefully consider the evidence presented and, in reaching a decision, provide
reasons for the result which are clear and responsive to the evidence. The
decision under review fails to meet this standard, and as such, I find it is
not an acceptable outcome which is defensible in
respect of the facts and the law.
[3]
As a
result, I find that the decision under review is unreasonable.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the decision under review is
set aside and the matter is referred back to a different visa officer for
re-determination.
There is no question to
certify.
“Douglas
R. Campbell”
Email this Content