Docket: IMM-11776-23
Citation: 2024 FC 1813
Montréal, Quebec, November 14, 2024
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Sébastien Grammond
BETWEEN: |
WEIYI CHEN |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Ms. Chen, a citizen of China, is seeking judicial review of the denial of a study permit. She intended to pursue a three-year program in computer graphics at Dawson College in Montreal.
[2] Ms. Chen has already studied in Canada. Her father applied for permanent residence and obtained a Certificat de sélection du Québec in the investor class. Her parents already own a house in Brossard. She studied at an elementary school and a secondary school in Quebec. However, in August 2022, she was denied entry to Canada because she had submitted a false study permit and was given a one-year exclusion order. It appears that she studied in the United States during school year 2022-23, and returned to China in the summer of 2023. While this is not directly relevant to the present matter, I was informed that her father’s application for permanent residence was recently refused.
[3] The visa officer denied the study permit because they were not satisfied that Ms. Chen would leave Canada at the end of her stay. Moreover, the officer stated in the GCMS notes that they were not satisfied that pursuing the program was reasonable when weighing its cost against its potential benefits.
[4] In my view, the officer’s decision to refuse the permit was reasonable. Study permit applications typically include a motivation letter describing how the applicant will benefit from the program upon returning to their country. Ms. Chen’s application did not provide any information in this regard. Rather, she explained that she intended to remain in Canada and that obtaining a diploma from Dawson College would improve her employability in Canada. The application was completely silent as to how the program would be useful if she were to return to China.
[5] At the hearing, Ms. Chen relied on subsection 22(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, which allows “dual intent.”
However, this provision reads as follows:
22 (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
|
22 (2 ) L’intention qu’il a de s’établir au Canada n’empêche pas l’étranger de devenir résident temporaire sur preuve qu’il aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée.
|
[6] Although dual intent is permitted, it does not relieve an applicant for temporary residence, including an applicant for a study permit, from the burden of showing that they will leave Canada. In this case, while it was clear that Ms. Chen had the intention to become a permanent resident, her study permit application did not contain anything that would have allowed the officer to find that she had the intent to leave Canada if her application for permanent residence were denied. Indeed, under “Purpose of Application,”
her counsel wrote as follows:
Since she is well adapted to the Quebec Education system and since she will eventually be a Permanent Resident in Quebec, she wishes to continue her studies at Dawson College in their 3D Animation & Computer Gen. Imagery Program.
[7] It is difficult to infer an intent to leave Canada from such remarks.
[8] Ms. Chen challenged the decision for unreasonably discounting the evidence of her financial means. However, this is not what the officer did. Rather, the officer noted that it would not make sense for her to spend more than $50,000 in tuition fees when there was no evidence of the benefits of the program should she return to China. This simply underlines that her application assumed that she would remain in Canada upon completion of her program. In any event, the officer’s treatment of Ms. Chen’s financial resources has no bearing on the finding that she would not leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.
[9] For these reasons, Ms. Chen’s application for judicial review will be dismissed.
Email this Content