WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2002 IMM-3552-01
Neutral Citation : 2002 FCT 1062
(UPON COMMENCING AT 3:30 P.M.)
THE COURT: The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of a visa officer dated July 19th, 2001 wherein the officer rejected Mr. Babalola's application for student authorization to study in Canada. The applicant, his mother, three sisters and one brother live in Nigeria. His father is deceased and he has one brother who lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. With the assistance of his brother residing in Canada and that brother's wife, the applicant applied and was accepted to a four year Bachelor of Arts program at the Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg starting in September, 2001. Thereafter, the applicant sought information regarding student authorizations from the Canadian High Commission in Akragana.
Among other things, the information received from the Commission stated that he should provide an official unconditional admission to an academic or training program, an official statement of fees and expenses, proof of adequate funding and present academic standing. In support of his application, the applicant accordingly submitted a declaration from his sponsors stating their incomes, their willingness to support the applicant's financial needs and an assertion that the applicant would leave Canada if they, the sponsors, were no longer able to support him. The applicant also attached a letter of acceptance from the Canadian Mennonite University, proof that his first year tuition had been paid and proof that his sponsors had purchased a one year cashable guaranteed investment certificate worth five thousand dollars in his name. Finally, a statement of results for the senior secondary school certificate from his community grammar school was also included.
The applicant was interviewed at the Canadian High Commission in Akra on July 19th, 2001. After the interview, by letter of the same date, the applicant was advised that his application for a student authorization had been denied. The refusal letter was written on a standard form. While various reasons for refusal are provided for on the form letter, the only one that is indicated as being relevant to the applicant (by way of a checkmark) is as follows:
"You have not satisfied the visa officer that you are a visitor as defined by subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Act because you have not demonstrated that you are seeking entry for a temporary purpose in that, you have not satisfied the visa officer that you have sufficient ties to your country of residence which ensure your return to that country."
The applicant alleges various errors by the visa officer. Most importantly, he takes issue with the adequacy of the reasons for the decision.
I have determined that the application should be allowed. In so doing, my reasons are not intended and should not be construed as constituting an opinion with respect to the merits of Mr. Babalola's application for a student authorization. I am mindful that the duty of fairness owed by visa officers to applicants for student authorizations is minimal. Here, the reasons contained in the visa officer's notes are less than skeletal and do not accord with the reasons provided in the refusal letter. The minimal duty of fairness was not respected.
There are additional deficiencies and concerns with respect to the documentation allegedly provided by the applicant. The applicant deposes that bank statements for one full year were forwarded to the High Commission. Copies of the statements are exhibited to the applicant's affidavit. The statements, with the exception of that for June 2000 did not make their way to the visa officer's file. The document containing the applicant's marks, which the visa officer unquestionably saw, is not included in the tribunal record. I am unable to conclude that these irregularities would not result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the visa officer dated July 19th, 2001 is quashed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for redetermination. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
(Adjourned at 3:30 p.m.)
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Odaro Omonuwa For the Applicant
Ms. Jessica Cogan For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Odaro Omonuwa
Winnipeg, Manitoba For the Applicant
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent
Email this Content