Docket: IMM-1090-17
Citation:
2017 FC 770
Vancouver, British Columbia, August 16, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Locke
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ANNA ONA OYITA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicant seeks judicial review of the
denial of a temporary resident visa for the purposes of visiting a cousin in
Canada. For the following reasons, I dismiss this application.
[2]
The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria but has
resided as a temporary resident in Israel since 1995. The applicant applied for
her temporary resident visa in February 2017, shortly before her visitor visa
to Israel was to expire in April 2017. Her application was supported by an
invitation letter dated December 7, 2016 from her cousin, and a doctor’s letter
dated January 12, 2017 from her cousin’s doctor.
[3]
A visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Tel
Aviv, Israel (the officer) denied the applicant her requested visa on the basis
that the officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the
end of her stay as a temporary resident. In reaching this conclusion, the
officer cited three factors: (i) travel history, (ii) family ties in Canada and
in country of residence, and (iii) purpose of visit. Specifically, the officer
noted that the applicant had been on extended visitor status in Israel for over
20 years, but that the reasons for this were unclear. The officer was
apparently also concerned about an inconsistency between the doctor’s letter
(which suggested that the reason for the visit was the applicant’s cousin’s
ill-health) and the cousin’s letter (which makes no mention of ill-health).
Finally, the officer noted that the applicant is apparently alone in Israel and
clearly does not wish to return to Nigeria.
[4]
The applicant takes issue with the denial of her
visa based on her travel history. While acknowledging a lack of travel history,
she asks whether this should “necessarily mean that she
is barred from visiting her seriously sick cousin in Canada?” But this
is not the proper consideration. As noted by the respondent, a prospective
visitor to Canada is presumed to be an immigrant, and it was up to the
applicant to rebut that presumption: Rahman v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2016 FC 793 at para 16; Obeng v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2008 FC 754 at para 20. The respondent also notes correctly
that the applicant does indeed have a travel history: she traveled to Israel as
a visitor over 20 years ago and remains there. Though the applicant responds
that there is no evidence that she ever overstayed her visit in Israel or
remained there illegally, this again is not the proper consideration. A lack of
clarity concerning the applicant’s travel history was of reasonable concern to
the officer.
[5]
The applicant also argues that there was no
evidence to support the officer’s comment that she clearly does not wish to
return to Nigeria. In my view, this was a reasonable conclusion to reach based
on the evidence that she has remained in Israel as a visitor for over 20 years,
apparently with no family there or any other clear reason to stay.
[6]
The applicant argues that the officer’s concern
about the purpose of her visit in light of inconsistency in the letters
submitted demonstrates a misunderstanding of the evidence. The applicant notes
that her cousin had not yet been admitted to hospital when his letter was
written, so it should not be remarkable that that letter did not mention his
ill-health. The applicant also argues that, regardless of the state of her
cousin’s health, the purpose for the applicant’s visit remained unchanged: she
wished to visit her cousin during a two-week vacation. I agree with the
respondent’s observation that the applicant’s visa request was not submitted
until three weeks after the doctor’s letter and eight weeks after the cousin’s
letter; there was ample time to arrange a revised letter from the cousin to
avoid the apparent inconsistency. The applicant responds that the cousin was in
hospital and may not have been available to prepare a revised letter. In my
view, this is speculation. If the cousin was so indisposed, the onus was on the
applicant to prove it. It is also my view that it was reasonable for the
officer to find that the evidence concerning the purpose of the visit was
inconsistent.
[7]
The applicant also takes issue with the
officer’s reference to a 2009 decision refusing a spousal sponsorship
application for permanent residence on her behalf. The officer’s comments in
this regard were as follows: “PA applied for PR in Canada
in 2009, sponsored by CLP. This application refused as relationship determined
not to be bona fide.” The applicant acknowledges that it was not
improper to make reference to this denial of permanent residence, but notes
that it was many years ago. The applicant argues that such a denial should not
operate to exclude the applicant from Canada going forward. In my view, there was
nothing unreasonable in the officer’s consideration of the applicant’s spousal
sponsorship application.
[8]
Finally, the respondent requests, and the
applicant does not object, that the style of cause in the present application
be amended to change the name of the respondent to the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration. I agree.
[9]
The parties are agreed that there is no serious
question of general importance to certify.
Email this Content