Docket: IMM-5515-14
Citation:
2015 FC 268
Vancouver, British Columbia, March 3, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HAFTOM TEKLAY WELDEGERIMA
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
& IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Haftom Teklay Weldegerima seeks judicial review
of the decision of a visa officer refusing his application for a student visa.
The officer was not satisfied that Mr. Weldegerima had sufficient funds available
to him to allow him to pursue his studies, nor was the officer satisfied that
Mr. Weldegerima would leave Canada after completing his program.
[2]
Mr. Weldegerima submits that the reasons given
for the visa officer’s decision were inadequate, and the decision itself was
unreasonable. He further submits that he was treated unfairly by the visa
officer, as he was not afforded an opportunity to address the officer’s
concerns. Mr. Weldegerima has not, however, persuaded me that there is a basis
for this Court to intervene, with the result that his application for
judicial review will be dismissed.
I.
Background
[3]
Mr. Weldegerima is an unmarried 26 year-old who
lives in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia with his parents and one of his four
siblings. His other siblings also live in Ethiopia. In 2014, Mr. Weldegerima
applied for a visa to pursue a Business Diploma in the E-Business and
Technology program at Fraser Valley Community College in Surrey, British Columbia.
[4]
Mr. Weldegerima stated in his application that
he has been working for Samueal General Trading & Industry P.L.C. since he
graduated from high school in 2008, and that he currently holds the position of
“Manager Administration”. Samueal General
Trading is a construction company that imports materials, and constructs roads
and buildings.
[5]
Mr. Weldegerima says the company selected him to
study abroad because he is a “key employee”
with a passion for adapting to new technology and systems. In his May 28, 2014
letter to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Mr. Weldegerima explained that
many Ethiopian construction companies still manage projects using manual
systems with outdated technology and that they struggle with profit margins. He
hoped that studying abroad would make the company’s projects more profitable
and increase “effectivity.”
[6]
Mr. Weldegerima’s employer also provided
a letter stating that it was hoped that the program would help them gain “vital knowledge in the field of E commerce” and “enhance [the company’s] growth.”
II.
Mr. Weldegerima’s Financial Resources
[7]
Section 220 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, requires that applicants for study
visas have sufficient financial resources available to them to allow them to
complete their studies in Canada. The information provided by Mr. Weldegerima
with respect to his financial situation was, however, both confusing and
internally inconsistent.
[8]
For example, Mr. Weldegerima stated on his
application form that his employer would provide him with $30,000 in total. His
tuition amounted to $10,290, which would leave him with $19,710 for his living
expenses. In contrast, Mr. Weldegerima stated in a letter dated June 21, 2014
that his employer had transferred $11,000 to him for his living expenses. Mr.
Weldegerima did not provide any explanation for this discrepancy, or any means
by which these inconsistent amounts could be reconciled.
[9]
To further complicate matters, a letter from Mr.
Weldegerima’s employer stated that he would be provided with $15,000 for his
living expenses. However, Mr. Weldegerima provided a deposit voucher dated June
18, 2014, which indicated that his employer had deposited $21,000 into his bank
account.
[10]
If some of these funds were intended to cover
Mr. Weldegerima’s tuition, this would again be inconsistent with the letter
from Samueal General Trading, which stated that the company would pay tuition “as and when due directly to the College Bank Account”
[my emphasis].
[11]
There is further inconsistency in the evidence
as to when it was that Mr. Weldegerima would receive his funding from his
employer. Mr. Weldegerima stated that “my Employer has
also transferred the full Annual Living expenses”, providing a deposit
voucher indicating that he had received the sum of $21,000. However, the letter
from Samueal General Trading states that payment for Mr. Weldegerima’s living
expenses “will be made available as and when the
travel arrangements for the study program have been finalized” [my
emphasis].
[12]
Given the wholly unsatisfactory nature of the
information provided by Mr. Weldegerima as to the financial resources available
to him, the officer’s finding that he had failed to establish that he had
sufficient financial resources available to him to allow him to complete his
studies in Canada was entirely reasonable.
[13]
There was, moreover, no obligation on the visa
officer to notify Mr. Weldegerima of the officer’s concerns in this regard, nor
did fairness require that Mr. Weldegerima be afforded an opportunity to address
those concerns prior to a decision being made in relation to his application
for a study permit. There is a legislative requirement that applicants
demonstrate that they have sufficient financial resources to allow them to
complete their studies in Canada, and it was incumbent on Mr. Weldegerima to
provide coherent evidence establishing that he had sufficient financial
resources available to him. This he failed to do.
[14]
The visa officer had two independent reasons for
refusing the visa application. My finding that the finding that Mr. Weldegerima
had failed to establish that he had sufficient funds available to him to
complete his proposed course of studies is sufficient to dispose of this
application. Had it been necessary to do so, I would also have found that the
officer’s finding that Mr. Weldegerima had not established that he would leave Canada after completing his studies was also reasonable.
[15]
Contrary to Mr. Weldegerima’s submission, the
officer did not find that Mr. Weldegerima had family members in Canada. The decision-letter simply indicates that Mr. Weldegerima’s family ties in Canada and Ethiopia were considered in evaluating whether he would leave Canada after the completion of his studies. The relative family ties of a visa applicant in
Canada and in his country of origin is a proper consideration in assessing
whether a visa applicant will leave Canada at the end of the visa period.
III.
Conclusion
[16]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review is dismissed. I agree with the parties that the case does not raise a
question for certification.
Email this Content