Ottawa, Ontario, the 7th day of April 2006
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BEAUDRY
BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application for judicial review filed pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) of a decision by Jean‑François Renaud, officer at the Canadian embassy in Paris (the officer) denying the applicant’s temporary resident visa application for study purposes.
I. Issue
[2] Was the officer’s decision patently unreasonable?
[3] For the following reasons, the answer to this question is negative and this application for judicial review is dismissed.
II. Background Facts
[4] The applicant is a citizen of Algeria, born in Oran on August 28, 1982.
[5] The applicant finished secondary school in 2001, and applied for a Canadian study permit on June 21, 2005.
[6] The applicant’s sister, Samia Mered, applied for a Canadian study permit on his behalf, because he had been unable to obtain a visa to go to France.
[7] Mr. Rafik Mered, the applicant’s brother, contacted the Université de Montréal and the Ministère de l’Immigration et des Communautés culturelles in Quebec for the applicant to obtain a Certificat d’Acceptation du Québec (CAQ).
[8] Mr. Rafik Mered was granted refugee status in Canada in 2001, and Samia Mered and her brother Mr. Karim Mered applied for permanent resident visas in the skilled worker category. The applicant’s mother lives in Algeria.
III. Impugned Decision
[9] In a letter dated June 30, 2005, the officer informed the applicant that his application had been denied. The officer stated that he was not satisfied that the applicant’s study plans in Canada were serious and coherent and that he intended to leave Canada at the end of the authorized period.
[10] The officer’s notes in the Computer‑Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) indicate the following:
· The applicant completed secondary school in Algeria in 2001, and pursued no other studies as of that date;
· The applicant’s brother applied for refugee status in Canada in 2001;
· The applicant’s sister told the officer that the family was moving to Canada and that they could not leave him behind to study in Algeria;
· When the officer expressed doubts as to the applicant’s intention to return to Algeria she said that the applicant intended to return to Algeria after his studies to look after his mother’s property.
IV. Analysis
[11] Section 20(1)(b) of the Act provides as follows:
|
20. (1) Every foreign national, other than a foreign national referred to in section 19, who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish, |
20. (1) L’étranger non visé à l’article 19 qui cherche à entrer au Canada ou à y séjourner est tenu de prouver : |
|
. . . |
[…] |
|
(b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. |
b) pour devenir un résident temporaire, qu’il détient les visa ou autres documents requis par règlement et aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée. |
[12] The officer’s decision is discretionary and his findings as to the seriousness of the applicant’s study plans and his intention to leave Canada after his studies are questions of fact. This Court should only intervene in cases where a patently unreasonable error was made. (Boni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 31, [2005] F.C.J. No. 43 (F.C.T.D.) and confirmed by 2006 FCA 68, [2006] F.C.J. No. 275 (FCA) (QL).
[13] The applicant argued that it was unreasonable for the officer to reject his application. He submitted that the fact that his brother Rafik had obtained refugee status in Canada and that his other brother and his sister intended to immigrate to Canada did not justify the officer’s findings to the effect that the applicant’s study plans in Canada were not serious and that he did not intend to return to Algeria at the end of his studies.
[14] The applicant also said that the mention made of his brother Rafik’s refugee claim in the officer’s CAIPS notes showed that the officer focused unduly on this fact, which was irrelevant.
[15] Despite the applicant’s arguments, the record shows that additional information are mentioned such as « the applicant completed secondary school in Algeria in 2001, and pursued no other studies as of that date » as well as the mention made of the applicant’s brother’s refugee claim in the CAIPS notes.
[16] The applicant’s family situation was therefore but one of many factors assessed by the officer. The fact that the applicant interrupted his studies in 2001 and could have pursued the same studies in Algeria was also considered by the officer. Nevertheless, the main reasons for the rejection are mentioned in the decision; in other words, the officer was not satisfied that the applicant’s study plans in Canada were serious and coherent.
[17] The applicant’s sister’s responses regarding the intention of several family members to settle in Canada for good were not determining factors, but it was not unreasonable for the officer to consider them in his overall assessment of the applicant’s request for a study permit.
[18] The parties stated that there was no question for certification. This application does not give rise to any.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review be dismissed. No question is certified.
Certified true translation
François Brunet, LLB, BCL
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5289-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED MERED
v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND MMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 4, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
APPEARANCES:
William Sloan FOR THE APPLICANT
Steve Bell FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
William Sloan FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada