Date: 20011115
Docket: IMM-3506-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1262
BETWEEN:
YUAN LIU
Applicant
AND:
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] At the outset of this hearing it was brought to my attention that certain paragraphs in an affidavit submitted by the applicant constituted new information and should be struck. I so ordered.
[2] This is an application for judicial review of the decision made by Judyanna Ng ("Visa Officer") at the Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong, People's Republic of China ("China"), dated May 29, 2000 refusing the request of Yuan Liu for a student authorization.
[3] The Applicant is a single female, born in January 1981 and residing in Shenyang, China. She graduated from High School in July 1999 and since then has been studying English at the Shenyang China International School.
[4] By letter dated October 14, 1999 the Applicant was conditionally admitted to a four-year degree program in the College of Arts and Science at the University of Saskatchewan. Admission was subject to successful completion of a three-month English preparatory program provided by the same University.
[5] The application included several supporting documents including, among others, the Applicant's "Study Plan", letters of acceptance from the University of Saskatchewan, and various financial documents. The financial documents show savings of CDN$136,666.66.
[6] In her "Study Plan", the Applicant expresses an interest in business management and her belief that the quality of education is superior in Canada to that offered in China. She also appears keen to improve her abilities in English. She indicates that she intends to return to China upon completing her studies.
[7] The Applicant was not interviewed by the Visa Officer.
[8] The Applicant's request was denied by letter dated May 29, 2000. The Visa Officer refused the Applicant's request on the basis of bona fides and sufficiency of funds. The Visa Officer was given the opportunity to expand on the reasons provided in her CAIPS notes and did so in an affidavit that she deposed September 28, 2000 and in an examination on that affidavit conducted November 22, 2000. Having examined all of these documents it would appear that the Visa Officer's concerns regarding bona fides were:
a) The proposed studies were not justified in the submitted plan;
b) The applicant could learn English in China and would be able to complete such courses at considerable savings;
c) The applicant was not sufficiently established in China;
d) The applicant had only received conditional acceptance into the degree program at the University of Saskatchewan;
e) The Visa Officer was not satisfied that the applicant had sufficient financial resources for the first year of her program and doubted the sufficiency of resources over the full length of the study period.
[9] The applicant submits that her primary goal was to obtain a university degree. In doing so, however, she was also keen to improve her ability in English. The English language program however should not be seen as an independent course. Rather it is a prerequisite that was imposed upon the Applicant by the University of Saskatchewan to ensure that she was sufficiently proficient in the primary language of instruction.
[10] It is further submitted that her English studies in China should not have led the Visa Officer to draw a negative inference.
[11] Counsel for the applicant further submits that it was not in the Visa Offier's domain to suggest that "the potential benefits of the proposed study are not justified by the cost of the proposed plan."
[12] Finally, the applicant submits that a conclusion that she was not "sufficiently established" in China and the fact that her parents will remain in her native land, that she has no job, that she is a student and has no siblings should be considered totally irrelevant.
[13] I am satisfied that there was sufficient funding available to this applicant and the Visa Officer totally misinstructed herself concerning the adequacy of funding. In addition, there is a letter on file from the University in which it confirms having received the sum of $18,189.90 Canadian funds which covers both tuition and living expenses for the first year.
[14] The Visa Officer was overly critical of the applicant's study plan because it included an English course and to suggest that it would be nearly a repetition of studies she had already completed in China is without foundation. There is no evidence to support this observation and it should be noted that the University letter of acceptance required that the applicant pursue upgrading in English before she could be formally accepted in the degree granting course she wished to undertake.
[15] The Visa Officer was totally wrong to suggest that this applicant had only conditional acceptance. All students face this hurdle of satisfying the institution of learning; they seek assurance that the applicant is fluent in the language of instruction.
[16] To suggest that the proposed plan of studies is not justified by the cost of the proposed plan is almost absurd. It is not to the Visa Officer to determine how much money should be spent in improving one's lot in life. This is purely a subjective and irrational observation.
[17] Finally, the Visa Officer's comments in which she suggests that the applicant is not sufficiently established in China is ludicrous. Here we have a nineteen year old young woman who has just completed high school. How could she have experienced the job market? Her parents will remain in China, why should she not want to return?
[18] This Visa Officer's assessment, if allowed to stand and applied to others, would obviate any possible further applicant from obtaining a visa to study in Canada.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
November 15, 2001