Date: 19980619
Docket: IMM-4132-97
Ottawa, Ontario, this 19th day of June, 1998
Present : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between :
LIUDMILA Y. TOTROVA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of visa officer Tim Bowman, rendered on September 2, 1997, refusing the applicant's application for a student visa, is quashed and the matter is returned before a different visa officer for reconsideration.
JUDGE
Date: 19980619
Docket: IMM-4132-97
Between :
LIUDMILA Y. TOTROVA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of visa officer Tim Bowman, Second Secretary at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, rendered on September 2, 1997, refusing her application for a student visa.
[2] The applicant is a thirty year old professional interpreter and translator (Russian/English). She is divorced and has sole custody of her 10 year old child who was to accompany her to Canada. She says that she intended to come to Canada to pursue a two-year Masters in Business Administration at the University of Toronto. She adds that she chose to attend the University of Toronto due to the fact that its tuition fees were substantially lower in comparison to those of the schools she had applied to in Britain, France and the United States.
[3] She applied for a student visa at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow on August 1, 1997. This first application was turned down by visa officer Martin Barry. It appears, from the latter's CAIPS notes, that because the applicant had been sentimentally involved with Canadians in the recent past and because her child was accompanying her, he was of the opinion that her ties to her home country were too weak and that she would not return to Russia.
[4] The applicant reapplied for a student visa on September 2, 1997, however visa officer Timothy Bowman also refused to issue her a visa on the basis that at her two interviews with different visa officers, it was concluded by each officer that they were not satisfied that she was entering Canada for a temporary purpose. In his Affidavit, he does note however that the applicant satisfied him during the interview that she was not presently involved in a romantic relationship with a Canadian citizen, which could have affected her motivations for returning to her home country. He was also satisfied that adequate financial arrangements were in place to support the applicant's son for the duration of their stay in Canada.
[5] It would appear, from this visa officer's CAIPS notes, dated September 3, 1997, that he concluded that the applicant did not intend to come to Canada for a "temporary purpose" on the basis that he felt that she did not have sufficient ties to Russia to return there after studying in Canada. Indeed, visa officer Bowman, aware that visa officer Barry considered that the applicant's ties to her home country were too weak, stated the following conclusion:
AT CONCLUSION, IT IS MY JUDGEMENT THAT SUBJ IS NOT WELL-ESTAB AND I DO NOT BELIEVE SHE WILL BE RETURNING AFTER STUDIES IN CDA. REFUSED.
[6] Visa officer Bowman's explanations, as they are stated at paragraphs 13 and 14 of his Affidavit, also reflect his concerns over the "vague nature of her future plans".
[7] I find both of those key considerations, insufficient ties to Russia and the vague nature of her future plans, totally inconsistent with the undisputed evidence that the applicant still had her parents, her son's father, and a boyfriend in Russia. She had also confirmed to the visa officer that she would not seek to stay permanently in Canada because of the apparent possibility of increased employment opportunities in Russia. Given the clear and stated purpose, in her application for a student visa, of embarking upon a two-year course of study at the University of Toronto, which is clearly a temporary purpose, and given the fact that the applicant never expressed the intention of remaining in Canada after her studies, save for the possibility of obtaining one or two years' employment experience, should that become possible, I find that the visa officer based his impugned decision on an erroneous finding of fact that he made without regard for that important and relevant evidence.
[8] For the foregoing reasons, this application will be allowed. The matter raises no question of general importance for the purpose of certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 19, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-4132-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: LIUDMILA Y. TOTROVA v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 4, 1998 REASONS FOR ORDER OF MR. JUSTICE PINARD DATED: JUNE 19, 1998
APPEARANCES:
MR. ERIC T. SUTTON FOR THE APPLICANT FOR THE RESPONDENT
MRS. JOCELYNE MURPHY
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
MR. ERIC T. SUTTON
FOR THE APPLICANT
MRS. JOCELYNE MURPHY
Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content