Date: 20020808
Docket: IMM-6094-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 847
BETWEEN:
TEJ SINGH BRAR & RUPINDER SINGH BRAR
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Thursday, August 8, 2002.)
ROTHSTEIN, J.A. (ex officio)
[1] Having heard argument from the parties, I am of the opinion that Sandhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 287 N.R. 97 (F.C.A.) is dispositive of this case. The Visa Officer considered the criteria in paragraph 22 of Sandhu, supra for which she had information from the Applicants. She concluded Rupinder Singh Brar was not in attendance as a full-time student at university.
[2] The Applicants did not produce attendance records and I do not think there is an obligation on the Visa Officer to ask for such records. She drew the inference from Rupinder's marks, e.g. zero out of two hundred and two out of two hundred, in various courses, that he was in his seventh time in first-year university and that he could not answer rudimentary questions about his courses, that he was not physically in attendance at university. While academic grades alone may not be sufficient to draw inferences about attendance in all cases, when the academic grades are in the order of magnitude of zero or two out of two hundred, and the individual is unable to answer rudimentary questions about the courses, an inference of non-attendance is not unreasonable.
[3] I can see no basis for interfering with the Visa Officer's analysis or conclusion on this point.
[4] The Applicants also allege that the Visa Officer erred in assessing whether Rupinder was a dependant son by referring to information that did not come from the Applicants. Irrespective of whether the Visa Officer erred in this regard, the fact that Rupinder was found not to be in attendance at university was dispositive of the result. Even if there was breach of procedural fairness on the question of dependency, it could not affect the decision and this Court will not intervene. See, for example, Telwar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 2002 FCT 702 at paragraph 4 per Layden-Stevenson, J.
[5] The judicial review will be dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
August 8, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-6094-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: TEJ SINGH BRAR and
RUPINDER SINGH BRAR
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. (ex officio)
DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicants
Mr. John Loncar
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
18 Wynford Drive
Suite 707
Toronto, Ontario
M3C 3S2
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:20020808
Docket: IMM-6094-00
BETWEEN:
TEJ SINGH BRAR and
RUPINDER SINGH BRAR
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content