Date:
20070503
Docket: IMM-5582-06
Citation:
2007 FC 486
Ottawa, Ontario,
May 3, 2007
PRESENT:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
SELMI
RAMZI
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review filed under section 72 of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, from a decision issued on
August 14, 2006 by the visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Tunisia,
refusing to grant the applicant a student visa.
RELEVANT FACTS
[2]
The
applicant is a citizen of Tunisia who applied for a student visa at the
Canadian Embassy in Tunisia, to pursue CÉGEP studies in Limoilou for the fall
2006 semester, in the “Contact CÉGEP” program.
[3]
After
receiving his confirmation of admission to CÉGEP Limoilou and his Certificat d’acceptation
du Québec (CAQ), the applicant sent an application for a student visa to the
Canadian Embassy in Tunisia to obtain a visa to study in Canada.
[4]
In
a letter dated August 14, 2006, the applicant was informed that his application
for a student visa had been refused. The grounds for that refusal are set out
in the following excerpt from the letter sent by the visa officer:
[Translation]
A careful review of the information that you
provided with your application, and the supporting documents provided, leads me
to conclude that you do not meet the conditions for a study permit. The reasons
are as follows:
▪
I
am not satisfied that you have the financial means to pay your tuition and
housing during your stay in Canada and to return to your country of residence.
▪
I
am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your authorized stay
for the following reasons: you do not have the necessary ties to ensure your
return.
ISSUES
[5]
The
following issues are raised by the parties as part of the judicial review:
1) Did
the visa officer err in her interpretation of the Act and Regulations, under
the terms of the Canada-Quebec Accord?
2) Did
the visa officer commit an error in her assessment of the evidence justifying
the intervention of this Court?
3) Did
the visa officer fail in her duty of procedural fairness toward the applicant?
STANDARD
OF REVIEW
[6]
The
issuance of a visitor’s via by a visa officer is a discretionary decision (De
La Cruz v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 26 F.T.R. 285). As
such, the courts must show considerable deference in judicial reviews of such
decisions (Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2). The
standard of review applicable to the factual conclusions of a visa officer is
therefore patent unreasonableness (Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 10
(QL)).
[7]
Recently,
in Boni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 68, [2006] F.C.J. No. 275
(QL), the Federal Court of Canada cited Justice Yves de Montigny in Sadiki
Ouafae v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 459, [2005] F.C.J. No. 592
(QL), who attempted to reconcile the various conclusions of the Federal Court
regarding the standard of review applicable to decisions by visa officers. At
paragraph 19, de Montigny J. concluded as follows:
[…] The reason for the different choices is
essentially that the nature of the decision under review by this Court depends
on the context. Thus it goes without saying that the appropriate standard of
review for a discretionary decision by a visa officer assessing a prospective
immigrant’s occupational experience is patent unreasonableness. Where the visa
officer’s decision is based on an assessment of the facts, this Court will not
intervene unless it can be shown that the decision is based on an erroneous
finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner.
[8]
As
held by Justice Michel Beaudry in Mered v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2006 FC 454, [2006] F.C.J. No. 564 (QL), at paragraph 12,
the conclusions of visa officers “as to the seriousness of the applicant’s
study plans and his intention to leave Canada after his studies are questions
of fact”. The same is true for the assessment of financial resources. The visa
officer’s decision regarding the sufficiency of evidence will therefore be
subject to the standard of patent unreasonableness.
[9]
However,
if the Court finds that there was a breach of procedural fairness, the
application for judicial review will be allowed, as it is clearly established
that the standard of review applicable to issues of natural justice and
procedural fairness is correctness (Canadian
Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539).
ANALYSIS
1)
Did the visa officer err in her interpretation of the Act and Regulations,
under the terms of the Canada-Quebec Accord?
[10]
First,
the applicant claims that the visa officer erred in law by failing to consider
the Canada-Quebec Accord. As part of the CAQ application, the Ministère de l’Immigration
et des communautés culturelles (MICC) had to assess the applicant’s financial
capacity based on the Declaration of guardianship from Nadia El-Ghandouri, the
letter from her employer, and her bank statement, the same information
submitted to the visa officer. The applicant argues that the MICC, which issued
the CAQ, thus determined that he had the financial resources needed to come
study in Quebec. The applicant therefore maintains that allowing the visa
officer to reassess the same information and reach an opposite conclusion makes
Quebec’s assessment of financial considerations and its declaration of
satisfaction, confirmed by the CAQ, completely useless and without any basis.
[11]
Although
I sympathize with the applicant’s argument, in that it seems illogical for the
visa officer to be able to conduct an independent analysis of the same evidence
and reach different conclusions, thus invalidating the determination by the
MICC regarding the applicant’s financial capacity, the visa officer’s approach
nonetheless respects the principles of the Canada-Quebec Accord and the
provisions of the Act and Regulations.
[12]
Indeed,
as submitted by the respondent, Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to determine
the admissibility of foreign students to the country. Quebec’s power to impose
additional criteria does not interfere with Canada’s jurisdiction in this area,
just as the provincial requirements are not at all binding on Canada, which is the
sole authority for admitting foreign students by issuing a visitor’s visa. The
respondent is therefore correct in stating that the fact that a CAQ was issued
by Quebec did not relieve the applicant of his burden of satisfying federal
authorities that he met the admission criteria set out in the Act and
Regulations. The respondent also notes that the visa officer not only had the
authority, but also the duty, to examine the applicant’s financial resources to
determine if he was admissible, independent of the assessment of the same issue
by provincial authorities, as sufficient financial resources are a condition
for admissibility to be issued a study permit under section 220 of the
Regulations. Moreover, insufficient financial resources are grounds for the inadmissibility
of any applicant, under section 39 of the Act. The Federal Court of appeal
examined the issue of the Canada-Quebec Accord’s impact on the jurisdiction of
a visa officer in Biao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2001 FCA 43, [2001] F.C.J. No. 338
(QL), concluding as follows at paragraph 1:
We consider that this appeal should be dismissed
with costs and that this question certified by the motions judge should be
answered in the negative:
|
|
Does the Canada-Quebec Accord
limit the jurisdiction of the visa officer to question the source of funds of
a Quebec-destined applicant for permanent residence in Canada, in order to
establish the applicant’s admissibility?
|
|
It seems clear to the Court that there is no
incompatibility in the powers and duties of the two signatories of the
Canada-Quebec Accord regarding immigration to Quebec. Clause 12 of that Accord
states that the federal government has the authority to admit immigrants to
Quebec and that it is the Government of Quebec which has the responsibility and
powers of selecting immigrants wishing to settle in Quebec. Naturally the
selection by the Quebec authorities is made and conducted from among the
eligible immigrants. […]
[13]
I
therefore consider that the Federal Court of Appeal disposed of the issue and I
have no hesitation in concluding that the visa officer did not err in law by
conducting an independent analysis of the sufficiency of the applicant’s
financial resources.
2)
Did the visa officer commit an error in her assessment of the evidence
justifying the intervention of this Court?
[14]
All
foreign students must obtain a visa before entering Canada, under subsection
11(1) of the Act. More detailed information regarding the admission of foreign
nationals wishing to study in Canada is found in the Regulations, particularly
sections 213, 216 and 220. As mentioned by the respondent, all of those
legislative provisions explicitly state that the visa officer must be satisfied
that the applicant wants to settle in Canada temporarily, and must ensure that
the applicant meets all admissibility conditions, including financial conditions.
Moreover, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating to the visa officer
that he or she meets each of the criteria set out in the Regulations.
[15]
The
applicant argues that the visa officer’s conclusion that he did not have the
necessary financial resources is patently unreasonable in light of the
documents submitted, which clearly show that his financial resources were
sufficient to cover any costs, particularly the evidence that his tuition had
been paid as required by the CÉGEP and the Declaration of guardianship by Ms. El‑Ghandouri.
The applicant also argued that the visa officer’s conclusion that he would not
leave Canada at the end of his stay is entirely arbitrary and goes against the
evidence submitted, specifically the applicant’s declaration that he would
return to Tunisia following his studies.
[16]
Regarding
the issue of the assessment of evidence, the respondent maintains that it is
clear from the visa officer’s affidavit that she considered all the documents
submitted by the applicant, but that she determined that they did not
demonstrate sufficient financial resources for studies in Canada. In light of
the evidence before her, the respondent asserts that it was not patently
unreasonable for the visa officer to conclude that the applicant had not shown
that his financial resources were sufficient to cover all costs associated with
his period of studies in Canada. Among other things, the visa officer noted in
her affidavit that the applicant had indicated in his application for a study
permit that his expenses in Canada would be covered by [translation] “myself or
my parents” and by “others”. Despite that, the applicant did not submit any
documents regarding his financial capacity or that of his parents.
[17]
Moreover,
the Declaration of guardianship signed by Ms. El-Ghandouri, on its own, was not
enough to show that the applicant had sufficient financial resources to come
study in Canada; again, she would have had to show that she had sufficient
financial resources to cover all costs associated with the applicant’s period
of studies that she committed to covering. However, the respondent maintains
that an analysis of all documents submitted as evidence by the applicant
regarding Ms. El-Ghandouri’s financial resources reasonably led the visa
officer to conclude that her financial resources were not sufficient to cover
all costs associated with the applicant’s period of studies in Canada. As
stated by the visa officer in her affidavit:
[Translation]
As the total amount appearing in the Royal Bank of
Canada bank statement barely covers the cheques to CÉGEP Limoilou dated July 7,
2006 and August 11, 2006 for Mr. Selmi’s tuition, I determined, while
considering that Ms. Nadia El-Ghandouri earned an annual salary of $70,650 for
2006, that her financial resources were not sufficient to cover all costs
associated with Mr. Selmi’s stay in Canada, in this case, in addition to
tuition, all costs of living during his studies and return airfare to come to
Canada and to leave again.
[18]
The
same is true for the visa officer’s determination that she was not convinced
that the applicant would leave Canada after completing his studies. Although
the letter included with the application for a study permit indicated that the
applicant planned to return to Tunisia after completing his studies, the visa
officer had to examine the applicant’s ties to his country of origin to
determine whether he would leave Canada following his authorized stay. In this
case, the visa officer’s assessment of the evidence did not satisfy her that
the applicant had sufficient ties to his country of origin to show that he
would leave Canada following his authorized stay. The visa officer gave the
following explanation in her affidavit:
[Translation]
I found that nothing held Mr. Selmi in Tunisia. He
is 29 years old and is single. He has not completed his high school (or the
equivalent) in Tunisia. He indicated in his study permit application that he is
a self-employed decorator. However, he provided no evidence in that regard.
[…] I noted that the program in which Mr. Selmi
registered at CÉGEP Limoilou is only an upgrade program to gain access to
college studies. The nature of his planned program of study did not satisfy me
that Mr. Selmi would return to Tunisia after completing his program at CÉGEP
Limoilou, as those studies are not in any way specifically related to his
current work.
Mr. Selmi also submitted no study plan to show his
specific plans for the future.
[19]
Finally,
the respondent notes that the fact that the applicant disagreed with the visa
officer’s conclusions is not enough to demonstrate that they are patently
unreasonably. On this point, I agree with the respondent. Having carefully
examined before the visa officer, I cannot conclude that her decision was based
on an erroneous finding of fact, made in a perverse or capricious manner or
without considering the elements available to her.
3) Did the visa
officer fail in her duty of procedural fairness toward the applicant?
[20]
Regarding
procedural fairness, the applicant argues that, if the visa officer was not
satisfied with the documents submitted regarding his financial capacity, she
should have called him to an interview or required additional documents, which
she did not do. The same is true regarding her doubts as to the accuracy of the
applicant’s statement that he intended to return to Tunisia. By failing to call
the applicant to interview, the visa officer should have assumed that it was
true that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay and that the
objective of his studies in Quebec was to help him acquire knowledge that would
benefit him in his own country, as he had indicated in his file,
notwithstanding the issue of his ties to his country of origin.
[21]
The
respondent, in turn, states that the visa officer asserted in her affidavit
that she had not called the applicant to an interview because she had the
elements needed to reach her decision. it was up to the applicant to submit all
necessary documents with his application for a study permit to show that he had
sufficient financial resources to come study and Canada and that he had
sufficient ties to his country of origin to convince the visa officer that he
would leave Canada at the end of his stay. That burden of proof could was not
shifted to the visa officer. The respondent argues that it is well-established
in jurisprudence that an applicant has no right to an interview based on
insufficient supporting evidence, and that the visa officer had no duty to call
the applicant to an interview to allow him to bolster the evidence. There was
therefore no breach of procedural fairness.
[22]
First,
it is important to note that nothing in the Act or the Regulations provides for
an interview or a request by the visa officer for additional documents.
[23]
At
the hearing before this Court, counsel for the applicant mentioned that the
file before the visa officer was complete. In her affidavit filed in support of
the respondent’s claims, the visa officer stated at paragraph 17: [translation]
“I did not call Mr. Selmi to an interview because I had the elements needed to
reach my decision.”
[24]
I
agree with the position expressed by the respondent that an officer who finds
that a via applicant does not meet the requirements set out in the Act and the
Regulations is not required to call the applicant to an interview or to ask
that he bolster the application. If that were the case, visa officers would
need to contact applicants and request additional documents until the applicant
was able to meet the requirements set out in the act. It would, in my view,
shift the burden of proof, which was clearly not the desire of the legislator.
[25]
In
that regard, in Dardic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2001 FCT 150, [2001] F.C.J. No. 326
(QL), Justice Elizabeth Heneghan stated the following at paragraph 18:
¶ 18 As for the
Applicant’s arguments that the Visa Officer breached a duty of fairness towards
him by failing to interview him and provide an opportunity to satisfy her
concerns, I refer to the decision of Justice Tremblay-Lamer in Tahir v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, (1998), 159 F.T.R. 109, at page 110 where
the Court said:
|
|
The applicant submits that when
an application is deficient, the visa officer has a duty to request
supporting documentation or to grant an interview in order to substantiate
the application. I do not agree. The onus is on the Applicant to file an
application together with any relevant supporting documentation. There is no
duty for the visa officer to try to bolster an incomplete application.
Obviously, the visa officer may make inquiries, when warranted, but, where
the applicant simply provides a job title and does not even care enough to
provide any of the available supporting material, I find it offensive to
suggest that the burden is shifted and that the visa officer should have done
more than she did.
|
[26]
In
Beganovic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC
359, [2004] F.C.J. No. 406 (QL), Justice Michael A. Kelen also shared that
opinion in concluding as follows:
¶15 The applicant submits that there
was a breach of fairness in not being granted an interview or the opportunity
to respond, and that the visa officer was obligated to consider eligibility
first despite not having proper documentation. These arguments are without
merit. This Court has rejected these arguments in Dardic c. Canada (MCI), 2001
FCT 150, [2001] F.C.J. No. 326 (T.D.) (QL), Tahir v. Canada (MCI) (1998), 159
F.T.R. 109 (T.D.), and Lam v. Canada (MCI) (1998), 152 F.T.R. 316 (T.D.).
¶16 In Lam, supra Rothstein
J. states at paragraphs 3 and 4:
3. At best, the
applicant must be saying that his application is ambiguous and that when he
included in his work history that he was a manager/trainee and assistant
manager at McDonald’s, that this placed the onus on the visa officer to
inquire, through a personal interview, whether those occupations gave him
training or experience as a Chef-Cook. However, if correct, this argument gives
an advantage to applicants for permanent residence who file ambiguous
applications. This cannot be correct.
A visa officer may
inquire further if he or she considers a further enquiry is warranted.
Obviously, a visa officer cannot be wilfully blind in assessing an application
and must act in good faith. However, there is no general obligation on a visa
officer to make further inquiries when an application is ambiguous. The onus is
on an applicant to file a clear application together with such supporting
documentation as he or she considers advisable. The onus does not shift to the
visa officer and there is no entitlement to a personal interview if the
application is ambiguous or supporting material is not included.
¶17 And in Dardic, supra at
paragraphs 18 and 19, Heneghan J. concludes on similar facts to the present
case, that states at paragraphs 18 and 19:
[…]
¶18 I agree with this
reasoning. It would be an unfair advantage to schedule interviews for persons
who have failed to complete their applications, and a waste of time and
resources to attempt to assess an application on eligibility grounds, based on
incomplete information. This application for judicial review must therefore be
dismissed.
[27]
Finally,
the applicant argues that the grounds on which the visa officer’s decision was
based, regarding the lack of ties needed to ensure his return to Tunisia, are
not enough for her to determine whether errors were indeed made in assessing
the evidence.
[28]
The
respondent, in turn, states that there is no need for this court to examine the
adequacy of the reasons given, as the applicant was required to ask the visa
officer to further explain her decision before applying for a judicial review
on the grounds of inadequate reasons. As noted by Justice James Russel in Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2006 FC 315, [2006] F.C.J. No. 387
(QL), at para 23:
[…] The Applicant did not express a concern over the
adequacy of reasons and did not seek further elucidation from the Officer. So
the Applicant cannot complain about the adequacy of reasons now because the
case law is clear that before seeking judicial review of a tribunal’s decision
on the grounds of inadequate reasons there is an obligation on the Applicant to
request further reasons from the tribunal. See: Marine Atlantic Inc. v.
Canadian Merchant Service Guild, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1217
(C.A.) (QL) at paras. 4-6; Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1301
(T.D.) (QL) at para 32; Hayama v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2003 CF 1305, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1642
(QL) at paras. 14 and 15.
[29]
Without
any evidence that the applicant expressed concerns to the visa officer, this
ground therefore cannot be raised in this judicial review.
[30]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[31]
The
parties have not submitted any questions for certification.
JUDGMENT
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
There
are no questions to be certified.
“Pierre
Blais”
APPENDIX A
RELEVANT
LEGISLATIVE EXCERPTS
Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act)
|
11. (1) A foreign national must, before entering
Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by
the regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an
examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not
inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.
39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if
they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other
person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that
adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve
social assistance, have been made.
|
11. (1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son
entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa et autres documents requis par
règlement, lesquels sont délivrés sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, qu’il
n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi.
39. Emporte interdiction de territoire pour motifs financiers l’incapacité
de l’étranger ou son absence de volonté de subvenir, tant actuellement que
pour l’avenir, à ses propres besoins et à ceux des personnes à sa charge,
ainsi que son défaut de convaincre l’agent que les dispositions nécessaires —
autres que le recours à l’aide sociale — ont été prises pour couvrir leurs
besoins et les siens.
|
Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
(the Regulations)
|
213. Subject to sections 214 and 215, in order to
study in Canada, a foreign national shall apply for a study permit before
entering Canada.
216. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an
officer shall issue a study permit to a foreign national if, following an
examination, it is established that the foreign national
(a) applied for it in accordance with this Part;
(b) will leave Canada by the end of the period
authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9;
(c) meets the requirements of this Part; and
(d) meets the requirements of section 30;
(e) [Repealed, SOR/2004-167, s. 59]
(2) Paragraph (1)(b)
does not apply to persons described in section 206 and paragraphs 207(c)
and (d).
(3) An officer
shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national who intends to study in
the Province of Quebec — other than under a federal assistance program for
developing countries — and does not hold a Certificat d’acceptation du
Québec, if the laws of that Province require that the foreign national
hold a Certificat d’acceptation du Québec.
220. An officer shall not issue a study permit to
a foreign national, other than one described in paragraph 215(1)(d) or
(e), unless they have sufficient and available financial resources,
without working in Canada, to
(a) pay the tuition fees for the course or program
of studies that they intend to pursue;
(b) maintain themself and any family members who
are accompanying them during their proposed period of study; and
(c) pay the costs of transporting themself and the
family members referred to in paragraph (b) to and from Canada.
|
213. Sous
réserve des articles 214 et 215, l’étranger qui cherche à étudier au Canada
doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, faire une demande de permis d’études.
216. (1)
Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), l’agent délivre un permis d’études à
l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont
établis :
a) l’étranger
a demandé un permis d’études conformément à la présente partie;
b) il
quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au
titre de la section 2 de la partie 9;
c) il
remplit les exigences prévues à la présente partie;
d) il
satisfait aux exigences prévues à l’article 30.
e)
[Abrogé, DORS/2004-167, art. 59]
(2) L’alinéa (1)b) ne s’applique pas
aux personnes visées à l’article 206 et aux alinéas 207c) et d).
(3) Le permis d’études ne peut être délivré à
l’étranger qui cherche à étudier dans la province de Québec — autrement que
dans le cadre d’un programme fédéral d’aide aux pays en voie de développement
— et qui ne détient pas le certificat d’acceptation exigé par la législation
de cette province.
DORS/2004-167, art. 59.
220. À l’exception
des personnes visées aux sous-alinéas 215(1)d) ou e), l’agent
ne délivre pas de permis d’études à l’étranger à moins que celui-ci ne
dispose, sans qu’il lui soit nécessaire d’exercer un emploi au Canada, de
ressources financières suffisantes pour :
a)
acquitter les frais de scolarité des cours qu’il a l’intention de suivre;
b)
subvenir à ses propres besoins et à ceux des membres de sa famille qui l’accompagnent
durant ses études;
c)
acquitter les frais de transport pour lui-même et les membres de sa famille
visés à l’alinéa b) pour venir au Canada et en repartir.
|
Canada-Quebec
Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens, February 5, 1991 (the
Canada-Quebec Accord)
|
12. Subject to sections 13 to
20,
(a) Québec has sole
responsibility for the selection of immigrants destined
to that province and Canada has
sole responsibility for the admission of immigrants to that province.
(b) Canada shall admit any
immigrant destined to Québec who meets Québec’s selection criteria, if the
immigrant is not in an inadmissible class under the law of Canada.
(c) Canada shall not admit any
immigrant into Québec who does not meet Québec’s selection criteria.
22. Québec’s consent is
required in order to admit into the province:
(a) any foreign
student, except a student chosen under a Canadian government assistance
program for developing countries;
APPENDIX A
15. Immigrants selected by
Québec shall be referred to federal authorities for
assessment relating to the
admission and the issuance of visas.
20. Québec shall be responsible
for:
b) providing prior
consent for the granting of entry to any temporary foreign worker whose
admission is governed by the requirements
concerning the
availability of Canadian workers, to any foreign student, or to any visitor
coming to receive medical treatment.
|
12. Sous réserve des articles
13 à 20 :
a) Le Québec est
seul responsable de la sélection des immigrants à destination de cette
province et le Canada est seul responsable de l’admission des immigrants dans
cette province.
b) Le Canada doit
admettre tout immigrant à destination du Québec qui satisfait aux critères de
sélection du Québec, si cet immigrant
n’appartient pas à
une catégorie inadmissible selon la loi fédérale.
c) Le Canada n’admet
pas au Québec un immigrant qui ne satisfait pas aux critères de sélection du
Québec.
22. Le consentement du Québec
est requis avant l’admission dans la
province:
a) de tout étudiant
étranger qui n’est pas choisi dans le cadre d’un programme du gouvernement
canadien d’assistance aux pays en
voie de
développement;
ANNEXE
A
15. Les candidats sélectionnés
par le Québec sont référés aux autorités canadiennes pour fins d’évaluation
en fonction des exigences reliées à l’émission des visas et à l’admission.
20. Le Québec:
b) donne son
consentement préalable à l’octroi de l’autorisation de séjour à tout
travailleur temporaire dont l’admission est régie par les
exigences touchant
la disponibilité de travailleurs canadiens, à tout étudiant étranger et à
tout visiteur venant recevoir des soins
médicaux.
|
Email this Content