PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Ms. Sukurjan Begum wished to include her son, Mr. Robiul Islam in her application to become a permanent resident of Canada. She claims that he meets the definition of a "dependent son" set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, on the basis that he was a full-time student. A visa officer who reviewed the application concluded that Mr. Islam did not meet that definition because he had not proved that he had been continuously attending university courses.
[2] Ms. Begum argues that the officer ignored evidence of her son's continuous studies. She asks me to overturn the officer's decision and order a re-assessment by a different officer. However, I can find no basis for overturning the officer's decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
Did Mr. Islam meet the definition of a "dependent son" by proving that he had been continuously pursuing university studies?
II. Analysis
[3] I can overturn the officer's decision only if I find that it was unreasonable.
[4] The officer concluded from the documents Mr. Islam supplied that he had completed his studies in 2001, although he did not write his final examination until 2004. Accordingly, there was a gap of three years. He could not, therefore, be said to have been continuously pursuing full-time studies.
[5] Ms. Begum pointed me to the following evidence that she claims the officer ignored:
∙ a personal history form in which Mr. Islam indicated that he would complete his B.Sc.(Hon.) in September 2004;
∙ a letter explaining that his course took longer than expected due to circumstances beyond his and the university's control;
∙ a 2005 letter from the Chairman of the Geology department stating that Mr. Islam passed his 2001 examination in 2004;
∙ another letter from the Chairman of the Geology department indicating that in 2003 Mr. Islam was "a regular student of 4th year B.Sc.(Hons)".
[6] However, none of this evidence, nor any of the other evidence before the officer, shows when Mr. Islam was actually attending courses full-time. It seems clear that Mr. Islam was enrolled in a four-year program beginning in 1997. Because of political instability and other unforeseeable circumstances, he was unable to take his final examination until 2004. But there is nothing in the record that shows when Mr. Islam was attending school full-time. He appears to have been enrolled as a student in 2002 and 2003. He completed the course work for a four-year degree sometime between 1997 and 2004. At that point, he awaited the outcome of his final examination and then, in the spring of 2005, enrolled in a master's program. None of the evidence actually supports his contention that he was a full-time student throughout the relevant time frame.
[7] Accordingly, I cannot find that the officer's conclusion that Mr. Islam finished his full-time studies in 2001 and wrote his final examination in 2004 was unreasonable on the evidence before him. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL ANDSOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7195-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SUKURJAN BEGUM v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2006
APPEARANCES:
| Rezaur Rahman |
|
| Joanna Hill
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| REZAUR RAHMAN Ottawa, ON |
|
| JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, ON
|