Date: 20170612

Docket: IMM-4377-16

Citation: 2017 FC 570

Ottawa, Ontario, June 12, 2017

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I.                   INTRODUCTION

[1]               The applicants are a married couple and citizens of India. They are challenging a decision of a visa officer refusing to grant Ms. Pinkalben Kuldeep Patel’s application for a study permit in Canada under subsection 216(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. Mr. Kuldeep Amruthbhai Patel’s application for a temporary resident visa was refused on the basis that his wife’s application was denied. The applicants are not challenging the decision made with respect to Mr. Patel’s application.

[2]               On July 29, 2016, Ms. Patel was accepted as a full-time student of a two-year Master of Business Administration (MBA) program at the New York Institute of Technology in Vancouver, British Columbia. Ms. Patel prepaid a deposit of CAD $2, 686 in tuition fees and was supposed to begin her studies in Fall 2016. Her husband, it was submitted, would be “visiting” while she attended classes.

[3]               On July 31, 2016, Ms. Patel submitted an application for a study permit to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. On August 20, 2016, her study permit application was refused by a visa officer for failing to meet the requirements of the IRPR. This is a judicial review of that decision commenced under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

[4]               At the conclusion of the hearing I informed counsel that the application would be dismissed. These are my reasons for that decision.

II.                ISSUE

[5]               The sole issue to be determined on this application is whether the visa officer erred in law by failing to provide intelligible reasons.

III.             RELEVANT LEGISLATION

[6]               The relevant provisions of the IRPA read as follows:

[7]               The relevant provisions of the IRPR read as follows:

IV.             ANALYSIS

[8]               The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review is reasonableness. Where there is existing jurisprudence that has determined the standard of review applicable to a particular issue before the Court, the reviewing court may adopt that standard: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] SCJ No 9 at para 57 [Dunsmuir].

[9]               The decision attracts a reasonableness standard as it involves a question of statutory interpretation and a question of mixed fact and law, involving the officer’s interpretation of his or her enabling statute and regulations connected with it: Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 526, [2012] FCJ No 548 at para 15; Chow v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 861, [2015] FCJ No 893 at para 8, citing Dunsmuir, above, at para 124.

[10]           The applicants submit that the officer’s insufficient consideration of the evidence renders the decision unintelligible. They submit that the officer failed to assess important evidence such as what factors in the application led to the conclusion that Ms. Patel’s reasons for study were not logical, and why Ms. Patel was deemed to have weak ties to India.

[11]           The applicants further submit that the decision maker failed to provide adequate reasons as to why and how the evidence provided was insufficient to satisfy the office that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay: Hussein v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 88, [2015] FCJ No 56 at para 25 [Hussein].

[12]           As a foreign national seeking temporary entry into Canada, the onus is on Ms. Patel to establish her case on a balance of probabilities and to demonstrate that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized period. Ms. Patel bears the burden of providing all the relevant information to satisfy the officer that she meets the statutory requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR: Solopova v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 690, [2016] FCJ No 662 para 22 [Solopova]; see also Obeng v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 754, [2008] FCJ No 957 at para 20.

[13]           The visa officer’s reasons are brief; however, as this Court has previously noted, “Newfoundland Nurses allows reviewing courts to connect the dots on the page where the lines, and the direction they are headed, may be readily drawn”: Komolafe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 431, [2013] FCJ No 449 at para 11. I find that there are sufficient dots on the page that could be connected in the present matter. I also note that the adequacy of reasons is not a “stand-alone” basis for quashing a decision: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] SCJ No 62 at para 14.

[14]           Ms. Patel had not been employed since graduating from her Bachelor of Business Administration program in 2014. Moreover, she failed to present evidence of income, aside from the very modest incomes of family members, sufficient to pay tuition and living expenses during the MBA program. As such, it was open to the visa officer to conclude that she lacked economic establishment in India and that she would not be able to support herself without working in Canada as provided by section 220 of the IRPR.

[15]           I further find that it was open to the officer to conclude that Ms. Patel failed to show establishment in her chosen field. In her statement of purpose, she stated that she intends to return to the booming computer service industry in India upon completing the MBA, and expects to develop a successful career within five years of graduation. However, Ms. Patel failed to provide any evidence of relevant work experience as she has been unemployed since graduating with a Bachelor of Business Administration in 2014.

[16]           The applicants’ reliance on this Court’s decision in Hussein, above, is misplaced. That case is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case at bar. Hussein involved an appeal under the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29. The Citizenship Judge in that case chose to apply a test which involved a strict counting of days of physical presence in Canada. However, the Citizenship Judge failed to engage in any counting of days as required by the test: Hussein, above, at para 16.

[17]           The Citizenship Judge also failed to address a key piece of evidence presented by the applicant: Hussein, above, at para 19. Finally, extensive supporting documentary evidence was provided by the applicant, but the Judge failed to provide any explanation as to why that evidence was unsatisfactory: Hussein, above, at para 20. I note that similar circumstances do not exist in the present matter as the reasons provided show that the officer was alive to the documentary evidence in the record.

[18]           As in Solopova, Ms. Patel’s arguments in this judicial review are seeking to provide “alternative explanations for the Officer’s findings and amount to taking issue with the weight given to the factors and evidence by the Office”: Solopova, above, at para 22.

V.                CONCLUSION

[19]            I am not satisfied that the applicants have shown that the visa officer’s conclusion was outside the scope of reasonableness. The visa officer’s decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. This application for judicial review is, therefore, dismissed.

[20]           No questions for certification were proposed by either party.

JUDGMENT in IMM-4377-16

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed. No questions are certified.

“Richard G. Mosley”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: