Docket: IMM-8305-14
Citation:
2015 FC 858
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, July 14, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
LOIC CERDY
KAMGUIA KOUAM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Preliminary
[1]
The Court finds that some of the documents cited
by the applicant in support of his application for judicial review are not in
the certified tribunal record. It is trite law that judicial review of an
administrative decision must be based on the evidence presented before the
administrative decision-makers (Runchey v Canada (Attorney General),
2013 FCA 16 at para 31 (Runchey); Gitxsan Treaty Society v Hospital
Employees’ Union, [1999] FCJ 1192 at para 13 (Gitxsan)). Thus, the “new evidence” in the applicant’s record cannot be
accepted by the Court.
II.
Introduction
[2]
This is an application pursuant to the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) for judicial review of a
decision dated December 15, 2014, in which a visa officer refused the
applicant’s study permit application.
[3]
For the following reasons, the application is
dismissed.
III.
Background
[4]
The applicant is a citizen of Cameroon who applied
for a study permit at the Canadian Embassy in Dakar on December 1, 2014.
[5]
The applicant was accepted into the minor in
arts and science program at the Université de Montréal in October 2014.
[6]
On December 4, 2014, the applicant obtained a
Quebec Acceptance Certificate.
[7]
On December 15, 2014, the visa officer refused
the applicant’s study permit application, finding that he had not met the
requirements of the IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (IRPR).
[8]
Specifically, the officer found that the
applicant had not demonstrated that he has [translation]
“sufficient and available financial resources, without
working in Canada, to pay his tuition fees for the course or program of studies
that he intends to pursue” (Visa Officer’s Decision, Applicant’s Record,
at page 9).
IV.
Statutory provisions
[9]
Subsection 11(1) of the IRPA stipulates that a
study visa is required to enter Canada with the intention of pursuing studies:
|
Application before entering Canada
|
Visa et documents
|
|
11. (1)
A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a
visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or
document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied
that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of
this Act.
|
11. (1) L’étranger doit, préalablement
à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa et autres documents
requis par règlement. L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un
contrôle, que l’étranger n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la
présente loi.
|
[10]
Sections 216 and 220 of the IRPR establish the
criteria for granting a study visa:
|
Study permits
|
Permis d’études
|
|
216.
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an officer shall issue a study permit
to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that
the foreign national
|
216. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes
(2) et (3), l’agent délivre un permis d’études à l’étranger si, à l’issue
d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis :
|
|
(a) applied for it in accordance with this Part;
|
a) l’étranger a demandé un permis
d’études conformément à la présente partie;
|
|
(b) will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized
for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9;
|
b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de
la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la
partie 9;
|
|
(c) meets the requirements of this Part;
|
c) il remplit les exigences prévues à
la présente partie;
|
|
(d) meets the requirements of subsections 30(2) and (3), if
they must submit to a medical examination under paragraph 16(2)(b) of the
Act; and
|
d) s’il est tenu de se soumettre à une
visite médicale en application du paragraphe 16(2) de la Loi, il satisfait
aux exigences prévues aux paragraphes 30(2) et (3);
|
|
(e) has been accepted to undertake a program of study at a
designated learning institution.
|
e) il a été admis à un programme
d’études par un établissement d’enseignement désigné.
|
|
Financial resources
|
Ressources financières
|
|
220. An
officer shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national, other than one
described in paragraph 215(1)(d) or (e), unless they have sufficient and
available financial resources, without working in Canada, to
|
220. À l’exception des personnes
visées aux sous-alinéas 215(1)d) ou e), l’agent ne délivre pas de permis
d’études à l’étranger à moins que celui-ci ne dispose, sans qu’il lui soit
nécessaire d’exercer un emploi au Canada, de ressources financières
suffisantes pour :
|
|
(a) pay the tuition fees for the course or program of
studies that they intend to pursue;
|
a) acquitter les frais de scolarité
des cours qu’il a l’intention de suivre;
|
|
(b) maintain themself and any family members who are
accompanying them during their proposed period of study; and
|
b) subvenir à ses propres besoins et à
ceux des membres de sa famille qui l’accompagnent durant ses études;
|
|
(c) pay the costs of transporting themself and the family
members referred to in paragraph (b) to and from Canada.
|
c) acquitter les frais de transport
pour lui-même et les membres de sa famille visés à l’alinéa b) pour venir au
Canada et en repartir.
|
V.
Standard of review
[11]
Previous jurisprudence demonstrates that the determination
of sufficient financial resources for the purposes of granting a study permit,
which is within the visa officer’s discretion, is reviewed under the
reasonableness standard of review (Hong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2011 FC 463 at paras 11 to 13 (Hong); Thiruguanasambandamurthy
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1518
at para 27).
[12]
The Court will therefore only intervene if the reviewed
decision-making process lacks transparency and intelligibility or if the
decision under review does not fall within the range of acceptable and
defensible outcomes in respect of the totality of the evidence submitted (Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 47).
VI.
Analysis
[13]
Section 220 of the IRPR, above, imposes on the
applicant the requirement to demonstrate, with clear and convincing evidence,
that he has sufficient financial resources to pay the tuition fees and maintain
himself during his studies in Canada (Weldegerima v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 268 at para 13; Kibangoud v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] FCJ 921 at para 11).
[14]
The applicant claims that the visa officer’s
finding that he does not meet that criterion is unreasonable because it was
made without regard to the evidence.
[15]
The applicant claims that the evidence submitted
to the officer in support of his study permit application, including a bank
statement demonstrating the payment of tuition fees in the amount of $22,015 to
the Université de Montréal, a [translation]
“letter of responsibility” and a declaration of
financial support, whereby the applicant’s mother agreed to cover all of his tuition
and living costs during his stay in Canada, and documents demonstrating the
existence of assets in the name of the applicant’s mother, were not considered
by the officer in the decision-making process.
[16]
The Court cannot agree with the applicant’s argument.
[17]
The Court finds that some of the documents cited
by the applicant in support of his application for judicial review are not in
the certified tribunal record. It is trite law that judicial review of an
administrative decision must be based on the evidence presented before the administrative
decision-makers (Runchey, above, at para 31; Gitxsan, above, at para
13). Thus, the “new evidence” in the applicant’s
record cannot be accepted by the Court.
[18]
Moreover, the visa officer’s notes from the
Global Case Management System (GCMS) show that the officer’s central concern was
based on the sufficiency and the source of the applicant’s financial resources.
[19]
The officer’s reasons suggest that she
considered the evidence before her in her assessment of the applicant’s study
permit application, but deemed it insufficient and inconclusive with respect to
the source of the financial resources raised (GCMS Notes, Affidavit of Elizabeth
McGirr, at page 7).
[20]
Regarding the officer’s expertise in granting
study permits and her analysis, which is anchored in the evidence, the Court is
of the opinion that the officer’s decision is reasonable (Hong, above,
at para 13; Ngalamulume v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[2009] FCJ 1593 at para 16).
VII.
Conclusion
[21]
For these reasons, the Court dismisses the
application for judicial review.
Email this Content