Date: 20010202
Docket: IMM-2749-00
Citation: 2001 FCT 19
Between:
YUQIANG XING,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Muldoon, J.
[1] On listening carefully to your arguments and reading your material, this Court can tell you how it is leaning. You may have discerned that already, and perhaps the Court should withhold the actual deciding until later, so that the side against which the decision is leaning can at least leave these premises, at this time, with some hope.
[2] This Court is leaning toward the respondent's case, as you may have gathered. The Court leans toward the rebuttable presumption which parliament enacted and the discretion invested in the visa officer, and the question to be resolved is: "Was he unreasonable?" I really think not, at this moment, but I think that it is possible to interpret the visa officer's decision according to both conflicting standards which have been foisted on us. We all love foreign words and so all you hear these days is reasonableness simplicitor. Well, all that Latin word means is "simply"; it is just an adverb meaning "simply" reasonableness. And that's not a bad standard for any decision of the Court.
[3] The applicant says he is a technician employed for 11 years by the Wuhan Railway Bureau. His counsel characterized the visa officer's decision as unreasonable and unfair in the refusal letter dated April 11, 2000, appearing on page 6 of the applicant's record. The applicant's family composition consists of: mother (housewife) and stepfather (restaurateur) residing in Grandview Missouri; a married sister living in Chicago; and a brother, a computer engineer living in Taiwan. He planned to register in Pattison College, on September 10, 1999.
[4] This refusal was reasonably open to the visa officer. The applicant's family have all migrated away from China, and he is not married, so what is there for him after his course at Pattison College be completed, to induce him to leave Canada? The visa officer was under no duty to provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond to the visa officer's concerns - the applicant in law bears the onus to persuade the visa officer that he would depart after his course ended. The visa officer simply was not persuaded that the applicant intended to depart - or, return to China - or intended to remain in Canada for a temporary purpose. The visa officer's duty of fairness resides only at the relaxed end of the spectrum - it was sufficiently exercised here.
[5] I'm going to have to say that I have concluded the matter, but it would be wrong of me to send you home thinking that it is up in the air entirely. The Court is leaning to the respondent's side of the case. This Court can hardly be going to think about it more thoroughly than at present and I shall write something, and of course you will have to be satisfied with that such something, as the politicians say, will appear in due course. I cannot predict exactly how lengthy it will be.
[6] The visa officer's decision is affirmed and the application is dismissed. No cots are awarded.
(Sgd.) "F.C. Muldoon"
Judge
February 2, 2001
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2749-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Yuqiang Xing
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 24, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF Muldoon, J.
DATED: February 2, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Rudolf J. Kischer For the Applicant
Mark Sheardown For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rudolf J. Kischer
Barrister and Solicitor
Vancouver, BC For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
General of Canada For the Respondent
Email this Content