Date: 20071207
Docket: IMM-152-07
Citation: 2007 FC 1288
Ottawa, Ontario, December 7,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
XIN
YE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
This
is a case which is very similar to that of Shuo Yang v. The Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, 2007 FC 1287, except that this was Ms. Ye’s
second visa application and her banking records were current.
II. BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant, a 25-year old pianist from China, was accepted into the
diploma program in piano at the Toronto School of Music. She filed evidence of
payment of her tuition and moneys for her living expense fund.
[3]
In
the Visa Officer’s decision, there is particular concern for the fact that
there was a lack of a banking history, that the bank deposit certificates were
recent (suggesting a short-term loan) and that the father’s income was modest
($5,700.00 Canadian) and the mother’s income was unstated.
[4]
From
these facts, the Visa Officer drew the conclusion that there was inadequate
financial documentation leading to a further conclusion that the Applicant
wished to enter Canada for reasons other than educational study and
would not leave Canada at the end of the period of study.
III. ANALYSIS
[5]
The
legal framework and the applicable standard of review are the same as that in
the Yang case and need not be repeated.
[6]
The
Applicant, wisely in my view, withdrew the motion to file an affidavit from
Colin Yip, the President of the School. It was in any event unnecessary as all
the pertinent facts were before the Court.
[7]
Despite
the able arguments of counsel for the Applicant, I am not convinced that this
is a case for the Court’s intervention. For reasons given in Yang, the
Applicant was not deprived of procedural fairness by the absence of an
interview.
[8]
As
to the adequacy of the documentation and the Visa Officer’s conclusions, the
concerns expressed had a rational basis and the conclusions drawn were open to
the Officer. The requirement to submit a bank history is disclosed in the
government’s application kit. There is a rational connection between that
information and the stability or security of deposits.
[9]
I
cannot find that the Visa Officer’s conclusions following from the evidence or
lack thereof is unreasonable.
[10]
Lastly,
I take nothing from the fact that in one instance in the decision the Visa
Officer uses the word “he” instead of “she”. This is insufficient to establish
that the Officer was confused s to which applicant’s file was at issue. The
CAIPS notes clearly refer to the specific facts including amounts and parents’
details which are unique to this Applicant.
[11]
There
was no requirement for the Officer to refer to either the Study Plan or the
receipt of funds where these facts do not undermine the basis of the Officer’s
conclusion.
IV. CONCLUSION
[12]
Therefore,
this application for judicial review will be dismissed. No question will be
certified.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content