Date: 20011105
Docket: IMM-1248-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1204
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice McKeown
BETWEEN:
ABRAR AHMED GULAMMOHMED DESAI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer dated February 10, 2000, in which the application for permanent residence in Canada of the applicant was refused.
[2] The issue is whether the visa officer erred in law in refusing the applicant's application as a dependent son.
[3] The visa officer reviewed all the evidence in the application from the applicant's interview in reaching his conclusion. He noted the following:
1) The only evidence of the applicant's studies since June 1992 were a few letters and a marks card which covered only one year of the eleven years the applicant claims to have been a student. The applicant claimed to have misplaced the other cards.
2) There was no evidence to corroborate the claim that the applicant studied almost 7 hours a day, 6 days a week for over seven years.
3) No coherent description of the program of study was provided including time frames and progression of studies.
4) No fees are required and the applicant never made any voluntary contributions.
5) The school does not issue calendars or publish a curriculum.
6) The applicant was found to be not credible. He refused to answer questions and was often vague in his answers.
7) The applicant's school is a private religious association, not registered as an educational facility. Therefore, the lack of indicia of a bona fide educational program such as course calendars, certificates or diplomas, timetable for completion of studies is of greater significance.
8) The evidence of the applicant's enrolment and attendance did not establish that the applicant was a full time student attending classes for the many hours a day over the many years claimed.
[4] The applicant submitted that the visa officer failed to recognize that the applicant was attending a religious institution and his findings could not be substantiated in light of this context. Furthermore, the Minister's Guidelines did not account for the differences in religious institutions from other educational institutions. A review of the officer's interview notes show that the applicant was vague and evasive in his answers. The officer acknowledged that registration is not a requirement for a bona fide educational facility but since the school was not regulated, a higher degree of scrutiny was required. As stated in Patel v. M.C.I., [1999] F.C.J. No. 647 (F.C.T.D.), the officer was assessing whether: "the quality of the institution met reasonable standards".
[5] Furthermore, the applicant acknowledged at the beginning, during and at the end of the interview that he understood the interpreter. He cannot now argue that the vague and inconsistent replies that he provided were as a result of poor interpretation. The credibility finding was open to the officer.
[6] It was also open to the officer to conclude that there was insufficient evidence of an organized program of study. The applicant was unable to describe in any detail the nature of his studies.
[7] The officer did not err in law in making his findings. They were all open to the officer based on a review of the evidence. The officer should not have required corroboration for the applicant's statement to show he was in full-time studies but this is not material here. The evidence with respect to the applicant's brother is not relevant in the matter before me. In my view there was more than adequate evidence for the officer to make the finding that he was not satisfied that the applicant had been enrolled and was in attendance as a full-time student since the age of 19 years in an academic, professional or vocational program at a university, college or other educational institution, as per the definition of "dependent son" in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978.
ORDER
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W. P. McKeown"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
November 5, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1248-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: ABRAR AHMED GULAMMOHMED DESAI
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: MCKEOWN J.
DATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2001
APPEARANCES: Ms. Chantal Desloges
For the Applicant
Mr. James Brender
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Green & Spiegel
Barristers & Solicitors
Box 114
Standard Life Centre
2200-121 King St. W.
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20011105
Docket: IMM-1248-00
Between:
ABRAR AHMED GULAMMOHMED DESAI
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER