Date: 20091110
Docket: IMM-1352-09
Citation: 2009 FC 1148
Ottawa, Ontario, November 10, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
YAN
SUN
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr. Yan Sun came to Canada in 2002 on a student visa. His visa has been renewed a
number of times since then but, in March 2009, an immigration officer decided
not to extend it further as she was not satisfied that Mr. Sun was a genuine student.
Mr. Sun argues that he was treated unfairly and asks me to order another
officer to consider his renewal application.
[2]
I cannot conclude
that Mr. Sun was treated unfairly and must, therefore, dismiss this application
for judicial review.
II.
Analysis
[3]
First, Mr. Sun argues
that the officer failed to provide reasons for rejecting his application. In a
letter dated March 10, 2009, the officer informed Mr. Sun that she was “not
satisfied that you are a genuine student, and that you will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for your stay.” In
notes to file, the officer mentions that:
• Mr. Sun was under
academic probation and no longer in good standing at his college;
• his visa required
him to attend school full-time but his transcripts showed that he had missed
some semesters and had withdrawn from a number of courses;
• Mr. Sun
attributed his absences to headaches; and
• Mr. Sun disclosed
that he was a partner in a small business but had not received any income from
it.
[4]
In my view, these reasons
are adequate in the circumstances. They inform Mr. Sun of the basis for the
officer’s finding that Mr. Sun was not a genuine student.
[5]
Second, Mr. Sun
submits that the officer should have given him a chance to address the
officer’s concerns. Mr. Sun points out that an officer is obliged to give an
applicant a chance to address any extrinsic evidence that the officer relies
on. Although there was a suggestion that the officer had consulted a business
registration document and had relied on it to conclude that Mr. Sun was
involved in a small business, it is clear that Mr. Sun referred to the business
himself in his renewal application. The officer did not consult any extrinsic
evidence and, therefore, did not have a duty to give Mr. Sun a chance to comment
on it.
[6]
Generally speaking,
the onus is on an applicant to provide evidence supporting his application. Mr.
Sun was clearly aware of his tenuous academic standing. He knew that he had
missed many classes. He could have provided a letter from his doctor if there
was a valid medical reason for his absences. He could have provided a note from
his business partner explaining what his role was in that enterprise. His
failure to do so is not attributable to any unfair treatment on the officer’s
part.
III. Conclusion and Disposition
[7]
I
cannot find any basis for Mr. Sun’s claim that he was treated unfairly. I must,
therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. No question of general
importance arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that:
1. The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general
importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content