Date: 20030325
Docket: IMM-1380-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 339
Ottawa, Ontario, this 25th day of March, 2003.
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
Between:
AZAR FARAHI BOZORG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial view of a decision of Thomas Richter, the Immigration Program Manager at the Canadian Embassy in Tehran, dated February 19, 2001, refusing Ms. Farahi Bozorg 's application for a student visa. The issue on this application is whether the applicant has demonstrated that she is a genuine visitor and not an immigrant.
FACTS
The applicant is a citizen of Iran who was studying mathematics at the University of Tabriz at time of her application. She wants to come to Canada to study computer programming at the Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technologies. Her intended program of study includes a preparatory program followed by a 3-year professional program in Computer Programming and Analysis. She was accepted by the college and was to begin her studies on January 8, 2001.
[3] Ms. Bozorg applied to the embassy for a student visa in October 2000. On her application form, she indicated that she would be responsible for expenses in Canada and that she had $20,000 available for her stay in Canada. Her application was denied in December 2000 because her savings were not sufficient for three years of study in Canada. The reviewing officer also doubted whether the applicant had strong enough ties to Iran that would compel her to return.
[4] The applicant had her offer from Seneca College extended and was given a new start date of May 7, 2001. She again applied for a student visa and attended an interview at the embassy on February 19, 2001. The applicant provided additional information on the financial situation of her
parents and proof of a Canadian bank account containing $12,000 that would be used to support her while she studied in Canada. She also produced a letter from Bushehr Polymer Industrial Group that stated:
Bushehr Polymer Ind.Group is sponsoring Miss Farahibozorg and all expenses during her stay in Canada will be borne by the Group. Bushehr Polymer Ind. Group has 20 companies within its fold, with a turnover of millions of dollar [sic] (please refer to attached paper). Furthermore, she is under the liability to return to Iran after the completion of her studies and work in her capacity of a Computer Programmer and Analyst in the computer department at our Group headquarter.
The applicant's parents both hold senior positions in the company and are minority shareholders of Bushehr Polymer Industrial Group.
[5] Her application was refused. The reviewing officer accorded the letter little weight as he found it self-serving and doubted whether the company could guarantee employment three years down the road, especially in light of the fact that the letter was not accompanied by other documentation that may have demonstrated a more binding commitment. He also noted that the parents' savings account balances had significantly increased since the first application by an amount that was not commensurate with their claimed income. He refused the applicant due to her weak ties to Iran.
[6] The applicant now seeks to have this decision set aside on two grounds. First, the applicant contends that the officer breached natural justice by failing to raise his concerns about the authenticity of the letter with the applicant. Second, the officer's decision was unreasonable in light of all of the evidence before him.
ANALYSIS
Subsection 9(1.2) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the "Act") places a burden on a visitor to demonstrate that he or she is not an immigrant:
Burden on visitors
9 (1.2) A person who makes an application for a visitor's visa shall satisfy a visa officer that the person is not an immigrant.
Charge de la preuve
(1.2) La personne qui demande un visa de visiteur doit convaincre l'agent des visas qu'elle n'est pas un immigrant.
[8] The standard of review on an application of this nature is reasonableness simpliciter, see Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 199 F.T.R. 302, Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 751 and Guo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1353.
[9] The officer did not err by by failing to raise his concerns about the authenticity of the letter with the applicant. The onus is upon the applicant provide evidence demonstrating that he or she is a genuine visitor and not an immigrant. As Mr. Justice Muldoon stated in Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 791 at para. 50:
In balancing the factors in Baker, the procedural requirements mandated by the duty of fairness should be relaxed for the processing of applications for student authorizations by visa officers overseas. Therefore, there are no grounds to argue unfairness in this process because a visa officer did not communicate all of her concerns to the applicant, or that she did not accord the applicant an opportunity to respond to those concerns.
[10] The officer came to a conclusion after weighing the evidence submitted by the applicant. He did not rely upon any extrinsic evidence. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the officer was under an obligation raise his concerns with the applicant or to seek out other information that may have aided her application.
[11] Furthermore, it was reasonably open for the officer to doubt the authenticity of the support letter from Bushehr Polymer Industrial Group. In the CAIPS notes, the officer wrote: "Above note is rather self serving. They can guarantee employment three years down the road?" Only a few months before, when the applicant first applied for a student visa, she indicated that she alone would
be responsible for her expenses in Canada. No mention was made of the Bushehr Polymer Industrial Group. The application was denied on November 30, 2000 because of financial concerns and a lack of ties to Iran. Less than a month later, the applicant was able to produce a letter dated December 13, 2000 that directly addressed those concerns. While the Court may not necessarily agree with the officer, in light of the circumstances, it was reasonable for him to question whether the letter was "self serving" and if the offer was genuine. There is reason to wonder why the Bushehr Polymer Industrial Group's involvement was not mentioned as part of the initial application.
[12] In addition, the applicant failed to produce documentary evidence confirming her claim that her parents earned the equivalent of $2000 per month. She was unable to adequately explain the sudden increase in the amount of money in her parents' savings account and where she got the $12,000 that was in her Canadian bank account. When all of these factors are considered in combination, the Court is satisfied that the officer reasonably concluded that the applicant had not met the onus imposed upon her by subsection 9(1.2) of the Act.
[13] The parties are not proposing any questions for certification. No questions will be certified.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Michael A. Kelen"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-1380-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: AZAR FARAHI BOZORG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, MARCH 13,2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: KELEN J.
DATED: TUESDAY, MARCH 25,2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Matthew Jeffrey
For the Applicant
Mr. Ian Hicks
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ms. Lorne Waldman
Barrister and Solicitor
281 Eglinton Ave. East
Toronto, Ont. M4P 1L3 For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:20030325
Docket: IMM-1380-01
BETWEEN:
AZAR FARAHI BOZORG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content