Docket: IMM-2874-16
Citation:
2017 FC 442
Toronto, Ontario, May 3, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
KHALIDULLAH
NOOR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Khalidullah Noor seeks judicial review of the
decision of a visa officer refusing his application for a student visa which
would have allowed him to study acting at the Toronto Film School.
[2]
The visa officer considering Mr. Noor’s
application was not satisfied that he had access to sufficient funds to allow
him to pursue his studies. The officer also appears to have been concerned
about Mr. Noor’s proposed course of study in acting, in light of his previous
university-level studies in computer science and technology.
[3]
Mr. Noor is not pursuing the argument advanced
in his written submissions that he was treated unfairly as the visa officer did
not alert him to his or her concerns, or give Mr. Noor the opportunity to address
those concerns. However, Mr. Noor maintains that the officer’s decision was
unfair because the officer failed to consider the information that he had
provided in relation to his application, and because the reasons provided for
refusing his application were vague and insufficient.
[4]
Mr. Noor’s arguments do not involve a question
of fairness. An alleged inadequacy in the reasons of an administrative
decision-maker is no longer a “stand-alone”
basis for quashing a decision: Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v.
Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, at para. 14,
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 708. Where reasons have been provided, the question is whether
a decision is reasonable in light of the outcome and the evidence that was
before the decision-maker: Newfoundland Nurses, above at para. 15.
[5]
While the reasons provided by the visa officer
in this case are admittedly brief, the jurisprudence of this Court has further
established that there is a limited obligation on visa officers to provide
reasons for rejecting visa applications: Singh v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 620 at para. 8, [2009] F.C.J. No. 797.
[6]
The reasons do, moreover, identify the officer’s
concerns, and Mr. Noor has failed to identify any evidence that was overlooked
by the visa officer. Rather, he takes issue with the weight that was ascribed
to the evidence by the visa officer and the inferences that were drawn from
that evidence.
[7]
For example, the officer’s main concern appears
to have related to the funds that were available to Mr. Noor to allow him to
pursue his studies in Canada. Mr. Noor submits that this concern was
unreasonable, as he had provided the officer with a bank statement for an
account held by “Bright Connection Consultancy
Services” showing a balance of $47,000 USD. According to Mr. Noor’s visa
application, his brother (who is identified as being the President and CEO of a
company called “Bright Connection Logistic Services”)
would be funding his studies in Canada. There was, however, no information
before the officer from Mr. Noor’s brother indicating his agreement to pay
for Mr. Noor’s studies.
[8]
Mr. Noor submits that the bank statement should
have been sufficient to allay the visa officer’s concerns in this regard. In
other words, he seeks to have me re-weigh the evidence that was before the visa
officer, and come to a different decision. That is not the role of this Court
sitting in review of an administrative decision. The officer’s concern with
respect to the financial resources available to Mr. Noor was, moreover,
reasonable, given the limited evidence in the record on this point.
[9]
Mr. Noor was seeking a study permit to allow him
to study acting in Canada. The visa officer was concerned with Mr. Noor’s
proposed course of study. This was not an unreasonable concern as studies in
acting do not appear to reflect a logical career progression in light of Mr.
Noor’s previous university-level studies in computer science and technology.
[10]
Mr. Noor notes that young people do change their
career paths, submitting that the visa officer should have given him the
benefit of the doubt on this point. The burden is, however, on visa applicants
to demonstrate that they meet visa requirements. The visa officer concluded
that Mr. Noor had failed to do so in this case, and he has not persuaded me that
the officer’s conclusion was unreasonable.
Conclusion
[11]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review is dismissed. I agree with the parties that the case is fact-specific,
and does not raise a question for certification.
Email this Content