Date: 20011126
Docket: IMM-4390-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1289
BETWEEN:
KUN YU
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This application was for judicial review of a decision of Carole Courchesne of the Canadian Embassy - Visa Section, in Beijing, (the "visa officer"), dated July 4, 2000, and refusing the applicant's application for a student authorization on the grounds that she was not satisfied that the applicant had established that his intention to visit Canada was bonafide and temporary in nature and that he or his sponsor had sufficient funds to pay for his expenses while in Canada.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. In May of 2000, he filed an application for a student authorization in Canada with the Canadian Embassy - Visa Section, in Beijing, China.
[3] He is 19 years of age, single and has no siblings. He graduated from the Dalian No. 3 Middle School in Liaoning Province, China, in 1999 and then continued studies at the Dalian Maple Leaf College; the 2000 academic year at Dalian Maple Leaf Adult Education College was to be credited towards his first year at Malaspina College in Nanaimo, B.C.
[4] The applicant also stated that the studies in Canada would be paid for by his parents and by his mother's aunt.
[5] The applicant was informed by letter that his application had been refused on or about July 19, 2000. The visa officer found that the applicant had not established that he was not an immigrant and did not satisfy her that he or his sponsor had adequate funds to pay for his expenses while in Canada as an international student.
[6] The CAIPS notes express the visa officer's decision as follows :
AFTER COMPLETING THE REVIEW OF THE FILE, INFORMATION GIVEN BY PA DOES NOT JUSTIFY CLAIMED SAVINGS. PA HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT PARENTS HAVE ENOUGH INCOME TO SUPPORT HIS ONGOING STUDIES IN CANADA. SPONSORSHIP FROM AUNT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER DOCS. SOME SAVINGS IN US ALREADY EXPIRED EVEN BEFORE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION. APPLICATION IS REFUSED ON BF AND FUNDS.
[7] The visa officer was given the opportunity to expand on her reasons in the affidavit that she deposed on November 1, 2000 as well as in an examination on that affidavit conducted (in French) on November 21, 2000. The visa officer made the following relevant findings of fact which I will highlight.
[8] The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation about the Company to satisfy the visa officer that there were sufficient funds available to him during the course of his intended study in Canada. For example, no proof of tax payment by the Company, or a business license for the Company were submitted in the application. The applicant did not submit an income tax statement for his mother to verify her income.
[9] No evidence was submitted that the applicant's parents had savings or accumulated funds to pay the expenses of travel, living abroad, and study overseas.
[10] In her Affidavit, para. 22, in response to the applicant's Affidavit, the visa officer elaborated on her reasoning with respect to the lack of evidence as to funds submitted by the applicant. The Immigration section of the Canadian Embassy provided a Student Visa Application Kit (the "kit"), at the time that the applicant submitted his application. The kit explains to applicants the material they are required to submit with their applications. The visa officer noted that some of the required documents were not submitted, such as an 18 month history of funds and original letters of employment on company letterhead, signed by an official of the company, for the applicant's parents.
[11] Page 5 of the kit states that applicants who submit their application for a student visa in Beijing and will not be receiving funding from a Canadian educational institution or a governmental organization are required to provide evidence that the applicant and/or their family can readily afford the cost of education in Canada. The applicant did not satisfy the visa officer that the proposed funding represented a source of ongoing funds available to him during the course of his study in Canada.
[12] Further, with respect to funds, the visa officer also noted that the kit required numerous documents to be submitted by the applicant where funding is to be provided by a family member other than the applicant's parents. In particular, the applicant failed to provide a letter of employment or proof of pension for the applicant's mother's aunt (the "aunt"), an income tax statement for the aunt, or bankbooks attached to certificates of deposit.
[13] The visa officer noted on two occasions in her CAIPS notes that the term deposit for $12,200 USD for the aunt had expired in September 1999 and that there was nothing to prove that it had been renewed and, thus, that it still existed.
[14] Although the applicant states that the contribution from the aunt was a gift, it was not clear from the application why this amount was being contributed by the aunt. Furthermore, after reviewing carefully the application, the visa officer does not recall having seen any bankbook attached to the certificate of deposit showing that the document had been stamped by the bank and renewed for three months. No history of accumulation of the funds to be provided by the aunt was included in the application.
[15] I have been satisfied that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to enable the visa officer to satisfy herself that he had sufficient financial resources available to him to support his proposed course of study in Canada, which he knew or ought to have known was required pursuant to s. 15(1)(b) of the Immigration Regulations. In particular, the visa officer found that the applicant had failed to provide certain of the information that was stated to be required from the kit. The refusal by the visa officer of the application on the basis of inadequacy of funds was reasonably open to her on the basis of all the evidence.
[16] One must remember that the applicant bears the burden of producing the necessary documents to support his applicant for a student authorization. The visa officer was under no duty to request further information or clarification because the application kit made it clear that such proof was required.
[17] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
November 26, 2001
Email this Content