Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2006
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Lashkinder Singh, a 27-year old citizen of India, has failed to establish any reviewable error in this application for judicial review of the third refusal by a different visa officer to grant his request for a student visa. Mr. Singh’s two previous requests were also refused. The second refusal was set aside on judicial review.
[2] Counsel for the applicant, after some hesitation, conceded that the visa officer’s CAIPS notes constitute reasons: Chou v. Canada (MCI), [2000] F.C.J. No. 314 (T.D.); Mohamed v. Canada (MCI), 2001 FCT 905; Bonilla v. Canada (MCI), [2001] F.C.J. No. 29 (T.D.); Kalra v. Canada (MCI), 2003 FC 941 at para. 15; Singh v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 315; Toma v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 779; and Wang v. Canada (MCI), 2006 FC 1298 at para. 22. In my view, the CAIPS notes in this proceeding disclose adequate reasons to justify the visa officer’s decision.
[3] The visa officer raised one principal concern with Mr. Singh. He questioned the credibility of the applicant’s choice of academic institution in British Columbia to pursue a business administration course. Apparently, that institution was no longer registered with the Private Career Training Institutions Agency, the statutory body responsible to regulate private colleges in that province. Mr. Singh had very little information to offer the visa officer concerning his choice of college. The visa officer did not accept the applicant’s explanation that he wanted to obtain a post-graduate diploma from an internationally recognized institution as opposed to one in India. In the opinion of the visa officer, the college chosen by the applicant in British Columbia could not offer such international recognition.
[4] The Applicant had the burden to establish with the visa officer that he was a bona fide student and, in this proceeding, to identify the visa officer’s error. In principle, the Applicant should have been in a position to respond to the visa officer’s concerns with respect to his choice of educational institution during the interview. He did not seek a further opportunity to do so.
[5] During the hearing of this proceeding, the applicant’s attempt to introduce new evidence, apparently received one or two days earlier, concerning the educational institution was doomed to fail. The visa officer supported his CAIPS notes by filing his first affidavit on May 2, 2006, and a supplementary affidavit on September 18, 2006. The respondent also filed a further memorandum of law. There was no cross-examination concerning either affidavit and, in addition, the applicant filed neither his own affidavit nor a supplementary memorandum of fact and law. If the applicant has new information concerning the institution, he may consider the advisability of submitting a further application for a student visa on the basis of this new evidence.
[6] In the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the negative decision of the visa officer was not unreasonable, let alone patently unreasonable. Accordingly, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial review is dismissed.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1281-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: LASHKINDER SINGH v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: November 15, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Baldev S. Sandhu
|
|
|
Mr. Scott Nesbitt
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Sandhu Law Office Surrey, BC
|
|
|
Mr. John H. Simms, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|