Citation: 2024 FC 1956
Ottawa, Ontario, December 4, 2024
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
|
BETWEEN:
|
RAMTEJ SINGH
|
Applicant |
and
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by a visa officer [the Officer] dated September 21, 2023 [the Decision], refusing the Applicant’s temporary resident visa [TRV] application [the Application]. The Officer refused the Application because the Officer was not satisfied the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR].
[2] As explained in further detail below, this application is dismissed, because the Applicant’s arguments do not undermine the reasonableness of the Decision or establish that the Applicant was not afforded requisite procedural fairness in the process leading to the Decision.
II. Background
[3] On August 23, 2023, the Applicant, a citizen of India, submitted the Application to obtain a TRV to visit Canada for a thirteen-day period beginning October 13, 2023. The stated purpose of the Applicant’s travel to Canada was to visit his cousin, a Canadian permanent resident who resides in Ontario and had invited the Applicant to visit him [the Inviter].
[4] In a sworn declaration dated August 12, 2023 [the Declaration], included with the Application, the Inviter referred to the Applicant as his cousin and stated that he had invited the Applicant to visit him in Canada to attend a housewarming party and religious ceremony and to visit nearby attractions.
[5] In the Application, the Applicant also included documents relating to his education, employment, finances, travel history, and ties to India. The Applicant also provided submissions from his representative, which detailed the Applicant’s purpose in traveling to Canada, his financial situation, and his continued ties to India, including his wife and two children who are remaining in India.
III. Decision under Review
[6] In the letter dated September 21, 2023, conveying the Decision to the Applicant, the Officer refused the Application because the Officer was not satisfied the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR. The Officer found the Applicant did not have sufficient financial resources to support the stated purpose of travel and that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the Application.
[7] The Officer’s corresponding Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes read as follows:
I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. Taking the applicant's travel plan into account, the documentation provided in support of the applicant's financial situation does not demonstrate that funds would be sufficient or available. I am not satisfied that the proposed stay would be a reasonable expense. The bank statements from SBI shows a variety of lumps sum deposited within a six month timeframe of the PA potential international travel. Limited evidence pertaining to the source of these funds. Limited evidence pertaining to the source of these funds. In the absence of satisfactory documentation showing the source of these funds, I am not satisfied the PA has sufficient funds for the intended proposed stay in Canada. Therefore, the applicant's assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel. Insufficient proof of relationship; the relationship to hosts in Canada has not been established. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. Weighing the factors in this application, I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.
IV. Issues and Standard of Review
[8] The Applicant’s arguments raise the following issues for the Court’s determination:
- Was the Decision reasonable?
- Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness?
[9] The first issue is subject to the standard of reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 16-17). The second issue is subject to the correctness standard of review (Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39522 (15 August 2021)). Put otherwise, the Court is required to assess whether the procedure followed was fair having regard to all of the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).
V. Analysis
A. Was the Decision reasonable?
[10] The Applicant’s principal argument relates to the Officer’s treatment of his banking records. The Officer referred to the Applicant’s bank statements showing lump sum deposits with limited evidence as to the source of these funds. In the absence of satisfactory documentation showing the source of these funds, the Officer was not satisfied the Applicant had sufficient funds for the intended proposed stay in Canada. The Applicant (who is an agriculturalist) submits that the Officer ignored evidence, in that the record before the Officer included documentation evidencing that a large lump sum deposit reflected in his bank statements resulted from the sale of a quantity of wheat.
[11] I accept that the documentation upon which the Applicant relies appears to support his assertion regarding the source of the relevant deposit. In his bank statement from HDFC Bank [HDFC], the largest single deposit (of 425,000 Indian rupees) occurred on April 24, 2023, and the Certified Tribunal Record includes a Sale Voucher in that amount that appears to relate to the sale of wheat. The Applicant also notes that some of the smaller transactions in his HDFC bank statement include references such as “MILK PAYMENT”
.
[12] In response, the Respondent points out that the record before the Officer included statements from two banks, HDFC and a bank called SBI. The late July 2023 closing balances that the Applicant had in the two banks when he submitted the Application were 447,387 rupees and 649,434 rupees, respectively. As such, SBI held the majority of the funds. The Respondent emphasizes that the Officer’s reasons reference SBI (not HDFC) as showing lump sum deposits with limited evidence as to the source of the funds. The Respondent also notes that the lump sum deposits with SBI include a deposit of 651,000 rupees on June 13, 2023, representing effectively the source of the entire closing balance of 649,434 on July 24, 2023.
[13] In reply on this point, the Applicant notes the particular language used by the Officer, that “[t]he bank statements from SBI shows a variety of lumps [sic] sum deposited within a six month timeframe of the PA potential international travel.”
The SBI statement actually shows only two deposits – the deposit of 651,000 rupees on June 13, 2023, and a smaller deposit of 2000 rupees on the same date. The Applicant submits that the Officer’s language demonstrates a lack of attention to the details of the evidence in the Application.
[14] I agree with the Applicant that the GCMS notes could have been written with more precision. However, the nature of the Officer’s concern remains intelligible, particularly as the notes speak of “limited evidence”
, as opposed to no evidence, of the source of the funds. Moreover, the Applicant has identified no evidence in the record that speaks to the source of the funds representing the majority of the cash in the Applicant’s bank accounts. The fact that the record included some evidence related to the source of some of the lesser deposits does not undermine the reasonableness of the Decision.
[15] In so concluding, I have considered the Applicant’s reliance on Sangha v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 760 (another case involving a self-employed person in the farming industry) in which Justice Shirzad Ahmed found that it was not necessarily suspicious that someone in that business would receive large payments at irregular intervals (at para 23). However, Justice Ahmed’s conclusion was that the officer in that case had made a veiled credibility finding, as opposed to a finding as to the sufficiency of the evidence. In contrast, the finding in the case at hand clearly related to the sufficiency of the evidentiary support for the source of the funds and, as I have concluded above, that reasoning is supported by the record.
[16] The Applicant also argues that the Officer ignored other evidence that was relevant to the Application and the Applicant’s obligation to satisfy the Officer that he would depart Canada at the end of his authorised stay. The Applicant refers to his business, financial assets, spouse, and two dependent children as representing strong incentives to return to India, as well as to his positive travel history, and he argues that the Officer erred by failing to assess and give weight to those factors.
[17] The Applicant references authorities such as Kheradpazhooh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1097, in which Justice Luc Martineau held that, although an officer is presumed to have considered all the evidence, if the officer ignores relevant evidence pointing to a conclusion contradicting the officer’s findings, it can be inferred that the officer did not review the evidence or arbitrarily disregarded it (at para 18).
[18] However, as the Respondent submits, a visa officer is not required to discuss every factor that may favour an applicant or to refer to every piece of evidence (Akhtar v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 595 at para 24). The Officer provided intelligible reasoning for the Decision, principally based on the lack of evidentiary support for the source of the Applicant’s bank balances. The evidence related to other factors, that the Applicant argues was overlooked, does not contradict that reasoning so as to support a conclusion that it was disregarded.
[19] Finally, the Applicant also notes the Officer’s finding that insufficient proof of the Applicant’s relationship to the Inviter had been provided. The Applicant submits that the Officer erred by failing to provide any detailed reasons supporting this conclusion and by ignoring evidence in the Application. Specifically, the Applicant notes that the Inviter swore the Declaration in which he referred to the Applicant as his cousin and further emphasizes that the Applicant and the Inviter have the same last name.
[20] Again, I find the Officer’s reasoning to be intelligible. The GCMS notes do not state that no evidence of the relationship had been provided. Rather, the Officer refers to insufficient proof thereof. Against the backdrop of the evidence to which the Applicant refers (the Declaration’s reference to the Applicant being the Inviter’s cousin and the fact that both men share the same last name), the Court can understand the Officer’s reasons and has no basis to conclude that this evidence was overlooked.
[21] In conclusion, I find the Decision to be reasonable. The Court will therefore move to consideration of the Applicant’s procedural fairness argument.
B. Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness?
[22] The Applicant argues that, when the Officer found that the purpose of the Applicant’s visit was not consistent with a temporary stay, and as a result was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, the Officer was making a veiled credibility finding. The Applicant submits that procedural fairness therefore required the Officer to alert the Applicant to these credibility concerns, and to afford him an opportunity to respond, before making that finding. He relies on Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 77 [Patel], in which Justice Alan Diner held that procedural fairness obligations arose where a visa officer had concerns about the genuineness of an application (at para 10).
[23] The reasoning in Patel appears to have been based on the officer’s conclusion that the applicant in that case would not be a “bona fide”
student, which the Court found to represent a credibly finding (at paras 10-12). However, the Officer did not employ similar language in the case at hand and, as explained earlier in these Reasons, the Decision was based on the Officer’s concerns about sufficiency of evidence. The principles of procedural fairness do not require visa officers to raise concerns of this nature (Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 672 at para 25).
[24] I find no want of procedural fairness in the process leading to the Decision.
VI. Conclusion
[25] As the Applicant’s arguments have identified no reviewable error in the Decision, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party proposed any question for certification for appeal, and none is stated.
Email this Content