Docket: IMM-608-14
Citation:
2015 FC 451
Toronto, Ontario, April 13, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Simpson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
TAMARA KOKAREVA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
ORDER AND REASONS
(Delivered
orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario, on April 8, 2015)
[1]
Tamara Kokareva [the Applicant] has applied for
judicial review of a Decision dated December 5, 2013 made by a visa
officer at the Canadian Embassy in Ankara, Turkey [the Officer] wherein he
refused the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident visa [the
Decision]. This application is brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.
[2]
The Applicant is a 78 year-old citizen of Baku, Azerbaijan. She retired from her profession as a Russian language teacher in 2010,
but continues to work as a private Russian language tutor.
[3]
The Applicant’s only son died in 1994, and her
husband passed away in 2000. Her only granddaughter lives in Russia. She has two sisters, one who resides in Germany, and the other who lives in Canada.
[4]
Between 2010 and 2013, the Applicant applied five
times for a visa to visit Canada. Each time, her application was refused. The fifth
application, which is the subject of the Decision, was submitted on December 2,
2013 [the Present Application], and refused three days later because the
Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay.
[5]
In the Present Application, the Applicant
explained that she intended to visit her sister and her niece; that she
intended to stay for a period of three months; and that she has $5,000 USD
available for her stay. The Certified Tribunal Record includes a letter from
the Applicant’s Canadian niece, dated November 8, 2013, and a letter from her
niece’s employer indicating that the niece earns an annual salary of $88,000.
[6]
The Niece’s Letter explains that her aunt has a
very close connection to her home in Baku Azerbaijan, where she owns her
apartment debt free and where the gravesites of her husband and son are located.
She notes that the Applicant lives a comfortable life in Baku, where she
receives her deceased husband’s pension, as well as her own, and that she is
very close to her granddaughter whom she visits regularly in Russia.
[7]
Her niece also says that while the Applicant’s
sisters have both resided abroad for many years, they have maintained a very
close connection by talking on the phone and Skype.
[8]
Finally, the Applicant’s niece states that she
will cover the full expenses of her aunt’s trip including return air fare and
medical coverage; and that her aunt is invited to stay at her home, where she
will have a private bedroom and bath.
I.
The Decision
[9]
The Officer did not express concern about the
credibility of either the applicant or her niece but nevertheless was not
satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay because
of:
•
Her travel history
•
Her family ties in Canada and in her country of
residence
•
The purpose of her visit
•
Her personal assets and financial status
[10]
The Officer’s notes provide further information
about the Decision. The material passages read as follows:,
76 year old woman to visit nieces and sister in
Canada. Previous refusals disclosed…
PA sisters are in Canada and Germany since 1999 and 1997 respectively. PA never travelled to visit either. PA has a
grand-daughter in Russia which warrants (according to host) that PA will return
to Azerbaijan. Limited funds and assets are evidenced in the file and PA plans
on spending 3 months in Canada. Bank account show 5000 USD$ available.
II.
The Issue
[11]
The issue is whether the Decision is reasonable.
III.
Discussion and Conclusions
[12]
In considering the issue, I am aware that the
threshold for reasons is low and that the decision is highly discretionary.
Nevertheless I find it unreasonable for the following reasons:
i.
The Officer appears to have failed to appreciate
import of some of the evidence. For example, the Applicant disclosed the
earlier refusals of her applications for temporary resident visas. This shows
that she is honest, and yet she apparently is not believed when she says she
will return home after her visit to Canada. As well, the Officer did not
recognize the importance of the applicant’s visits to her granddaughter in Russia. They show an established pattern of regular returns to Azerbaijan; and show that
she has close family near her home.
ii.
The Officer treated the Applicant’s failure to
visit her sister in Canada as a negative factor. This was unreasonable because,
at least in recent years, Canada has repeatedly denied her a visa which would
permit such a visit.
iii.
The Officer was also dismissive of her assets,
which include a family home which she owns.
iv.
The Officer was dismissive of her resources for her
visit. No reference was made to the substantial support that the Canadian niece
is prepared to provide.
v.
The Officer was also dismissive of the
Applicant’s ties to Azerbaijan. She has professional ties which include ongoing
work as a tutor; she has social and family ties, which include her friends and granddaughter;
she has emotional ties to the graves of her son and husband; and she has
economic ties, which were not mentioned, that include her own pension and that
of her husband.
[13]
For all these reasons the application for
judicial review will be allowed.
[14]
No question was posed for certification for
appeal.
Email this Content