VISITOR REFUSED VISA FOUR TIMES

The case below illustrates the difficulties in obtaining visitor status ( Temporary Resident Visas) faced by applicants who do not have a solid work and travel history.

Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between
Fahmida Rahman, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2016] F.C.J. No. 753

2016 FC 793

Docket: IMM-5402-15

 Federal Court
Vancouver, British Columbia

Strickland J.

Heard: July 4, 2016.
Judgment: July 12, 2016.

(30 paras.)

---

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

1     STRICKLAND J.:-- This is an application for judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer ("Officer") of Citizenship and Immigration Canada ("CIC") dated November 24, 2015 denying the Applicant's request for a Temporary Resident Visa ("TRV"). This application is brought pursuant to s 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 ("IRPA").

Background

2     The Applicant is a national of Bangladesh. She is married to Anwar Shahadat Shatil, a citizen of Bangladesh who holds a Canadian TRV and study permit allowing him to pursue a Master of Science degree in Biomedical Engineering at the University of Manitoba. He arrived in Canada in September 2014 while the Applicant remained in Bangladesh. The Applicant made her first application for a TRV in May 2015, which was refused as were two subsequent applications. With the assistance of her lawyer, the Applicant made her fourth application in November 2015, which was also denied. That decision is the subject of this application for judicial review.

Decision Under Review

3     By letter dated November 24, 2015, the Applicant was informed that her TRV application was refused on the basis that the Officer was not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her stay as a temporary resident ("Refusal Letter"). In reaching this decision, the Officer stated that he or she had considered several factors, including the Applicant's travel history, her family ties in Canada and in her country of residence, her current employment situation, and, her personal assets and financial status.

4     Subsequently, the Applicant was provided with further reasons for the refusal of her TRV application in the form of entries of visa officers' notes in the Global Case Management System ("GCMS"). These included an entry by the Officer dated November 24, 2015 recording that the Applicant had been a senior observer for the Bangladesh meteorological department since January 2014, that she reports to the assistant meteorologist and that she has a very modest annual salary of taka 136k (about $2300 Canadian, or less than $200 Canadian per month). The entry states that the financial documents for the Applicant and her spouse had been seen, a travel itinerary had been provided and a 108 page submission by the Applicant's representative had been carefully reviewed. The Officer noted there was no indication that the Applicant's spouse visited Bangladesh since coming to Canada, the couple has no children, and the Applicant is young and started working recently, less than 2 years ago. Further, it was noted that she has a modest income and no travel history. The entry also stated that despite having her direct family in Bangladesh, her strongest tie was to her husband in Canada. Her representative had commented on the possibility of settling in Canada, also mentioning that dual intent is allowed. The Officer concluded that, based on the documents provided and despite the analysis of the Applicant's representative, he or she was not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence submitted with the application demonstrated the Applicant is well-established, professionally and financially, and constituted sufficient ties to Bangladesh to ensure that she would comply with the terms and conditions of her stay and depart Canada when required. On that basis, the application was refused.

Issues and Standard of Review

5     There is only one matter at issue and that is whether the Officer's decision was reasonable.

6     The Applicant submits that the applicable standard of review for a visa officer's decision to issue or refuse a TRV is reasonableness (Tavakoli Dinani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1063 at para 18 [Tavakoli]) as does the Respondent (Loveridge v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 694 at para 10; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 526; Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir]). I agree. This Court has previously held that a visa officer's decision to deny a TRV application based on the belief that the applicant would not leave Canada at the end of their stay is a question of mixed fact and law. Accordingly, the decision attracts the reasonableness standard of review (Utenkova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 959 at para 5).

Was the Officer's decision reasonable?

Applicant's Submissions

7     The Applicant submits the Officer's decision should be set aside as it ignored relevant evidence. In support of this position, the Applicant submits that a visa officer cannot "systematically immunize" a decision from judicial review where relevant evidence is submitted by the applicant and not discussed (Tavakoli at para 25). The Applicant points out that this Court, in Girn v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1222, recently said that a visa officer's decision to refuse a TRV application was unreasonable because the officer ignored evidence contrary to his or her conclusion (at para 31). The Applicant also notes that it is unreasonable for a visa officer to be dismissive of an applicant's evidence (Kokareva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 451 at para 12 [Kokareva]).

8     With respect to the facts in the present case, the Applicant says the GCMS notes do not mention the support letters from the Applicant's parents and sister; the Applicant's paid return airline ticket and flight itinerary; evidence of a Bangladeshi bank account in the Applicant's name; a bank statement for the Applicant from that bank; a confirmation of shares registered in the Applicant's name in Bangladesh; and, relevant information contained in an employment letter written by the Applicant's immediate supervisor at the Bangladesh Meteorological Department. All of which are said to demonstrate her ties to Bangladesh and her intent to return.

9     The Applicant also submits that the Officer's decision is unreasonable as it contradicts relevant evidence without any evidentiary basis for doing so and makes arbitrary inferences that are not supported by the evidence or the relevant jurisprudence. In support of this position, the Applicant submits that a visa officer must not rely on speculation without adequate consideration given to countervailing factors. If a visa officer does so, he or she must provide further reasons; if no further reasons are provided, the court may characterize the officer's decision as one that does not meet the standard of reasonableness articulated in Dunsmuir (Momi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 162 at para 23). In particular, the Applicant says the following with respect to the Officer's decision:

·        * 

The Officer's statement in the GCMS notes that the "Applicant is young and started working recently (less than 2 years ago)" is incorrect and vague; 

·        * 

The terms "modest" and "very modest" in relation to the Applicant's income were contradicted by the letter from the Applicant's employer and are also vague. If the references to the Applicant's income are references to the Applicant's greater earning potential in Canada, then the decision is unreasonable (Dhanoa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 729 at para 18 [Dhanoa]). Moreover, references to the Applicant's earning power are made "sterile" by the absence of a cost of living analysis, the absence of references to the Applicant's living and working conditions in her home country and similar conditions in Canada (Dhanoa at para 14); 

·        * 

If, however, the Officer is implying an issue of credibility with the Applicant or her evidence, then there is no justification or evidentiary basis for the Officer to do so, especially considering the Applicant voluntarily indicated her previous TRV refusals in her current application (Kokareva at para 12); 

·        * 

The issue of the Applicant's spouse not having visited Bangladesh since arriving in Canada is an irrelevant consideration (Khatoon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 276 at para 12). Additionally, the Applicant's supporting materials indicate why her spouse has not been able to visit Bangladesh but the Officer's GCMS notes ignore this evidence; 

·        * 

Refusing the TRV application because the Applicant does not have a child in Bangladesh is "hardly sufficient to amount to a reasonable exercise of discretion when other factors are taken into account" (Onyeka v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 336 at para 48); and 

·        * 

The Officer incorrectly drew a negative inference on the basis of the Applicant's lack of travel history. As stated by this Court in Dhanoa at para 12: "[l]ack of previous travel can only at most be a neutral factor". 

Respondent's Submissions

10     In response to the Applicant's submission that the Officer ignored evidence, the Respondent submits that the Officer is presumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence unless the contrary is shown. Further, the Officer was not required to make an explicit finding on each constituent element leading to the final decision. The reviewing court must simply be able to understand why the decision was made, looking to the entire record to determine the adequacy of the reasons (Wang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 201 at para 19; Florea v Canada (Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No 598 (FCA) at para 1 [Florea]; Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62 at paras 15-16 [Newfoundland Nurses]). In any event, the GCMS notes indicate that the Officer carefully considered all of the evidence.

11     The Respondent also submits that the Officer clearly outlined the grounds for refusal in the Refusal Letter and the GCMS notes. These demonstrate that the Officer was primarily concerned with the Applicant's limited financial and professional ties to Bangladesh, and the stronger familial pull of her husband in Canada compared to her direct family in Bangladesh. The Respondent says these concerns are unambiguous and are based on the evidence submitted by the Applicant.

12     The Respondent submits that the Officer's conclusion was not a negative credibility finding nor did it involve arbitrary inferences. There was an explicit statutory onus on the Applicant to satisfy the Officer that she would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for temporary residence in Canada. Further, it is well-established that an officer must weigh the extent of an applicant's economic incentives and family ties in Canada and their home country. The weight to be assigned to these factors is a matter for the officer's discretion and is not a basis for judicial review (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1298 at paras 9-10; Chhetri v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 872 [Chhetri]).

13     The Respondent states that a visa officer is not obliged to conduct a cost of living analysis when considering an applicant's financial incentive to overstay in circumstances, like these, where the officer's decision includes an assessment of a number of different factors (Huang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 145 at paras 8-9 [Huang]; Sadiq v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 955 at paras 19-23 [Sadiq]). It was also reasonable for the Officer to consider income of less than $200 Canadian a month to be a very modest salary compared to the draw of a Canadian salary (Calaunan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1494 at paras 29-30).

14     The Respondent also submits it was not irrelevant for the Officer to have considered the Applicant's lack of travel history when assessing her TRV application. This Court has held that an applicant's lack of travel history is a relevant consideration on a visa application (Dhillon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 614 at para 43 [Dhillon];Obeng v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 754 at paras 13, 20 [Obeng]). In the present case, the Applicant had no prior travel history which could be relied on as a positive factor to satisfy the Officer that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay.

15     The Respondent submits that the Applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence, which is not the proper function of the Court on judicial review (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 61; Pei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 391 at para 14).

Analysis

16     The IRPA requires that a foreign national, before entering Canada, apply for a visa (s 11(1)), establish that they hold such a visa and that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay (s 20(1)(b)). With respect to TRV's, s 7(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 ("IRP Regulations") states that a foreign national may not enter Canada to remain on a temporary basis without first obtaining a TRV. Section 179 of the IRP Regulations sets out the requirements that must be met before a visa officer will issue a TRV. Among these is the requirement that the visa officer be satisfied that the foreign national will leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for his or her stay. There is a legal presumption that a foreign national seeking to enter Canada is an immigrant, and it is up to him or her to rebut this presumption (Obeng at para 20). Therefore, in the present case, the onus was on the Applicant to prove to the Officer that she is not an immigrant and that she would leave Canada at the end of the requested period of stay (Chhetri at para 9).

17     With respect to the Applicant's allegation that the Officer ignored relevant evidence, the Officer is assumed to have weighed and considered all the evidence presented unless the contrary is shown, and that is not the case here (Florea at para 1; Ahmed v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 1083 at para 34). The GCMS notes state that counsel for the Applicant submitted a 108 page submission, including a 12 page analysis, which was carefully reviewed by the Officer. As can be seen from the Certified Tribunal Record, attached to the 108 page submission were the two family support letters, the Applicant's return airline ticket and flight itinerary, the letter from the Applicant's employer, evidence of a Bangladeshi bank account in the Applicant's name, a bank statement for the Applicant from that bank, and, a letter of allotment of shares registered in the Applicant's name in Bangladesh.

18     Further, most of the documents the Applicant asserts were ignored by the Officer were referenced in the GCMS notes. The November 24, 2015 entry by the Officer who refused the application refers to the Applicant's travel itinerary, her employment information, the financial documentation of her and her husband and, as noted above, her counsel's submissions. A prior entry by another officer on November 19, 2015 specifically addresses the "proof on file" including her employer's letter and setting out the information contained in that letter; her income of BDT 135,780, which is stated in her employer's letter; her savings of BDT 224,306.56 which comes from the certificate confirming her bank account; and, an investment in shares in the amount of BDT 500,000, which comes from the letter of allocation of shares, as well as other financial information.

19     The Applicant takes issue with the fact that the GCMS notes were made by two different officers and submits that there is no indication in the GCMS notes that the Officer responsible for determining her TRV application considered the notes of the other visa officer. I would note first that the jurisprudence is clear that the GCMS notes form part of the reasons for the decision (Rezaeiazar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 761 at paras 58-59; Veryamani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1268). Furthermore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to infer that the deciding Officer considered all the notes in the GCMS system when deciding on the Applicant's TRV application. In any event, as noted above, the Officer who made the determination did, directly and indirectly, refer to the Applicant's supporting documentation.

20     In regard to the Applicant's submission that the Officer ignored relevant information contained in the employment letter, the letter is explicitly referred to in the earlier GCMS entry which records that the Applicant has been a senior observer with the Bangladesh Meteorological Department since January 2014 and, as indicated by her employer, she is currently on a temporary probationary period and will be eligible for full-time employment on January 1, 2016, conditional upon her returning from Canada. As noted above, the employment letter is also attached to the 108 page submission of counsel considered by the Officer who issued the refusal.

21     While it is true the Officer did not specifically refer to the two family support letters in his or her notes, the support letters were also attached to the 108 page submission, which the Officer stated was carefully reviewed. The Officer also noted that the Applicant had direct family in Bangladesh but found that her strongest tie was to her husband in Canada. This indicates that the Officer weighed the Applicant's family ties to Bangladesh and to Canada in reaching his or her decision. In any event, the Officer was not required to explicitly mention each and every piece of evidence considered (Newfoundland Nurses at para 16).

22     In short, I do not agree with the Applicant that the Officer ignored evidence.

23     The Applicant also raised numerous arguments to support her position that the Officer contradicted the evidence, without an evidentiary basis for doing so, and that the Officer made arbitrary inferences.

24     In this regard, I do not share the Applicant's concern with respect to the alleged vagueness of the Officer's statement that the "Applicant is young and started working recently (less than 2 years ago)". The Officer need not define words such as "young" and "recent", their meaning is clear and self-evident in the context of his or her decision.

25     The Officer's reference to the Applicant's salary as very modest is more problematic. While her employer's letter described her income as "competitive", it appears that the Officer reached the conclusion that it is modest based on his conversion of her salary to Canadian dollars, being less than $200.00 per month. This raises the question of whether the Officer's assessment of her financial status was given undue weight and improperly conducted in absence of a cost of living analysis. However, the Officer's description of her income was only one aspect of the evidence that was considered, but failed to establish, that the Applicant is well-established professionally and financially. Similarly, even if the "modest" nature of her salary was considered by the Officer in the context of the Applicant's greater earning potential in Canada, because it was not the sole factor considered and was not given inordinate weight in refusing the application, it is not a reviewable error (Huang at paras 8-9; Sadiq at para 23).

26     Finally, the Applicant suggests that, by referring to her modest salary, the Officer may have been implying that he or she had an issue with credibility. However, the Applicant has failed to fully develop this submission and, in my view, it is of no merit.

27     The Applicant correctly states that the Officer observed that the Applicant's spouse had not visited Bangladesh since coming to Canada, without reference to the spouse's explanation contained in his submission made in support of her application that, because of his work obligations, it was not possible for him to visit Bangladesh during the 2015 holiday season. In my view, the relevance of the Officer's observation is questionable, however, it was also peripheral to his or her main findings with respect to the Applicant's financial and familial ties to Bangladesh.

28     With respect to the GCMS notes indicating that the Applicant has no children and no travel history, the issue of whether or not the Applicant had any children was directly relevant to the Officer's assessment of the strength of the Applicant's familial ties to Bangladesh.

29     The Applicant's lack of a travel history is also a relevant consideration on a visa application (Dhillon at para 43; Obeng at para 13; Huang at para 11). However, as the Applicant submits, a lack of previous travel is, at most, a neutral factor (Dhanoa at para 12). The Officer referred to her travel history both in the GCMS notes and in the Refusal Letter. The latter stated that the Applicant had not satisfied the Officer that she would leave Canada at the end of her stay as a temporary resident and, in reaching that conclusion, the Officer considered four factors, including her travel history. While I agree that the Officer erred in treating the Applicant's lack of travel history as a negative factor, given the consideration also afforded to the Applicant's familial, financial and professional ties, that error alone is not sufficient to render the decision unreasonable.

30     The Officer concluded, having considered the totality of the evidence, that the Applicant had not met her onus of satisfying the Officer that she would depart Canada at the end of her authorized stay. In my view, that decision was within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

JUDGMENT

·        THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that

·        1. 

The application for judicial review is dismissed. 

·        2. 

There shall be no order as to costs. 

·        3. 

No question of general importance for certification was proposed or arises. 

STRICKLAND J.

VISITOR VISA DENIED TO FILIPINO TO VISIT AILING MOTHER

A visa officer has discretion to deny a Temporary Resident Visa to as  long as reasons are intelligible. In the case below, the officer appears to have considered the applicant's mother condition and the medical reports, but nevertheless reached the conclusion that the applicant would attempt to remain in Canada as there was little incentive for him to return to the Philippines.

Azarcon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between
Erick Jade Azarcon, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2015] F.C.J. No. 685

2015 FC 675

Docket: IMM-4723-14

 Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario

Zinn J.

Heard: May 21, 2015.
Judgment: May 25, 2015.

(11 paras.)

---

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

1     ZINN J.:-- The applicant asks the court to set aside a decision of a visa officer denying him a temporary resident visa to visit his mother in Canada. He submits that he was denied procedural fairness because the decision's reasons are inadequate and the decision is unreasonable because the officer misconstrued or ignored evidence. For the reasons that follow, the court must dismiss this application.

2     The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. He sought a six month temporary resident visa in order to come to Canada to support and care for his mother, Juliet Azarcon, who lives in Canada. Ms. Azarcon is a caregiver and is in the processes of obtaining permanent residence. She was in a car accident and suffers from various injuries.

3     The visa officer rejected the application as he or she was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada after his stay as a temporary resident. This decision was stated to have been based on the applicant's travel history, family ties in Canada and country of residence, limited employment prospects in country of residence, current employment situation, personal assets and financial status.

4     The Visa Officer's notes, which constitute the reasons for the decision, state:

·       NO FOSS RECORD. 28 Y/O MALE. VISTING MOTHER FOR SIX MONTHS. MOTHER FIGURED IN A CAR ACCIDENT IN NOV 2013. MED CERT SEEN. MOTHER SUFFERS FROM DEPRESSION AND PTSD. SUSTAINED SOME INJURIES AND UNDERGOING PHYSICAL THERAPY. SHE HAS SOME PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS BUT IS ABLE TO PERFORM BASIC SELF-CARE FUNCTIONS LIKE DRESSING UP, EATING, GOING TO THE BATHROOM. MOTHER ON A WP AS LCP. HAS NO FAMILY IN CDA. CURRENTLY RECEIVING DISABILITY BENEFITS. SUBJ HAS NO PREV OVERSEAS TRAVEL. RUNS A SMALL INTERNET SHOP. NO PROOF OF BUSINESS INCOME. MODEST FUNDS WITH NO DEPOSIT HISTORY. UNMARRIED, NO DECLARED DEPS. HAS A NURSING DEGREE. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED ALL INFO ON FILE, PARTICULARLY THE SITUATION OF SUBJ'S MOTHER IN CDA. HOWEVER, SUBJ PRESENTS VERY WEAK TIES IN THE PHILS (NO TRAVEL, LOW FUNDS, SOURCE OF INCOME). ALSO HAS STRONG ECONOMIC INCENTIVES TO REMAIN IN CDA. ON BALANCE, I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT SUBJ WILL LEAVE CDA BY THE END OF AUTHORIZED STAY. 

5     I am unable to agree with the applicant that these reasons are not sufficiently intelligible or transparent for him and the court to be able to determine whether the decision is or is not reasonable. The ultimate question the officer had to address was whether the applicant would return to the Philippines after visiting Canada to care for his mother.

6     The duty on a visa officer to provide reasons is at the low end of the scale. The question the court must ask is whether the reasons are such that the applicant knows why his application was rejected. In my view, they meet that standard. The officer noted that the applicant has weak ties to the Philippines. The information summarized by the officer concerning the applicant's personal ties to the Philippines is accurate. The officer does not mention that the applicant has a sibling and a father in the Philippines; however, it is not incumbent on an officer to recite every fact in the application, especially when, as here, there is no evidence that these relationships would be a strong draw to return to the Philippines and leave a mother in Canada who may still require his care. The applicant knows from the reasons given that the officer concluded that he had weak ties to the Philippines.

7     The applicant also knows that the officer knew and understood his reason for wishing to visit his mother in Canada -- namely, to care for her. He submits that the officer ignored or misconstrued evidence as to the mother's condition and her need for his care.

8     In my assessment, the officer's summary of the mother's condition is a fair and reasonable summary of the medical evidence tendered by the applicant. In particular, the observation that "she has some physical limitations but is able to perform basic self-care functions" is a fair and reasonable characterization of that evidence. The attendant care evaluation in the record shows that very little time is required for level 3 care -- "complex health/care hygiene functions." Most of the care required is in supervising or the patient or in providing "routine personal care." The officer's summary is thus reasonable.

9     The applicant also objects to the officer's statement that he "has strong economic incentives" to remain in Canada. He submits that it is impossible to know what incentives the officer was referring to in the notes. In my view, the officer's observation is not without some merit. Ms. Azarcon is in receipt of disability income and there is a medical report in the record that states that she should be in receipt of attendant care benefit, which the applicant could presumably provide given his nursing background, of $7,840.11 per month. The conclusion that he would have a financial incentive to overstay his visa is reasonable.

10     In summary, although the ultimate decision may have been otherwise based on the record, the court cannot find that the result reached by this officer was unreasonable. Nor can the court find that the officer's reasons were lacking in detail such that they were unintelligible or lacking in transparency.

11     Neither party proposed a question for certification; nor is there one.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed and no question is certified.

ZINN J

CONTRADICTIONS IN JOB DETAILS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS DOOM VISA APPLICATION

The case below shows how contradictions and incomplete visa applications may result in a refusal.

Farid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between
Mariana Beshara Nawwar Farid, Applicant, and
The Minister Of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Respondent

[2015] F.C.J. No. 556

2015 FC 579

Docket: IMM-8398-13

 Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario

Russell J.

Heard: April 2, 2015.
Judgment: May 4, 2015.

(41 paras.)

---

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

·       RUSSELL J.:-- 

I. INTRODUCTION

1     This is an application under s 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer [Officer], dated November 3, 2013, which refused the Applicant's application for a temporary resident visa.

II. BACKGROUND

2     The Applicant is a citizen of Egypt. In March 2013, she was offered a job with a company located in Toronto. In May 2013, the Applicant applied for a work permit and temporary resident visa.

3     In August 2013, the applications were rejected because the Officer was unsatisfied with the Applicant's financial documentation.

4     In October 2013, the Applicant re-applied for a work permit and temporary resident visa.

III. DECISION UNDER REVIEW

5     The Applicant's second application was rejected on November 3, 2013. The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay as a temporary resident because of her family ties in Canada and Egypt, and because of her limited employment prospects in Egypt. The Officer was also not satisfied by the contact information on the Applicant's employment letter. The Officer indicated that the "[f]ax number may have been erased and there are no land line numbers which is uncommon in Egypt. No evidence of social insurance subscription" (Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at 4). The Officer also said that there was no documentation relating to the Applicant's husband.

6     Further reasons for the Decision are provided in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes (CTR at 105):

·       Prev intvw notes show contradictions. On the one hand, PA indicates that husb earns low salary from govt job but then indicates that salary from private engg work is EGP 30k per month which is very high yet could not indicate why he insists on keeping govt job. 

·       Also if husb is earning that much, how come she indicated wishes to go to Cda for 2 yrs to save some money. 

·       Funds last time were deposited all at once. This time, no evidence of funds at all. 

·       After a careful review of all the foregoing, I am not satisfied that PA is well-established in Egypt nor that she would return to Egypt after the 2 yrs of her LMO have been terminated, if granted a WP. 

·       No docus provided this time as evidence of husb's employment and reasons why he is not accompanying. I believe that husb is only staying behind to act as a tie to Egypt. 

·       Refused. 

IV. ISSUES

7     The Applicant raises the following issues in this proceeding:

·       1. 

Whether the Officer fettered his or her discretion; 

·       2. 

Whether the Officer breached procedural fairness; and 

·       3. 

Whether the Decision is unreasonable. 

V. STANDARD OF REVIEW

8     The Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 [Dunsmuir] held that a standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every instance. Instead, where the standard of review applicable to a particular question before the court is settled in a satisfactory manner by past jurisprudence, the reviewing court may adopt that standard of review. Only where this search proves fruitless, or where the relevant precedents appear to be inconsistent with new developments in the common law principles of judicial review, must the reviewing court undertake a consideration of the four factors comprising the standard of review analysis: Agraira v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at para 48.

9     The Applicant submits that the Officer's factual assessments are reviewable on a standard of reasonableness: Dhillon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 614 at para 19 [Dhillon]. The Respondent submits that the Officer's conclusions with respect to findings of fact or mixed fact and law are reviewed on a standard of reasonableness: Dunsmuir, above, at paras 47, 53, 55, 62; Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at paras 52-62 [Khosa].

10     The Court agrees that the Officer's factual determinations are reviewable on a standard of reasonableness: Dhillon, above, at para 19; Zhou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 465 at para 8. Questions of procedural fairness are reviewable on a standard of correctness: Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Exeter v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 251 at para 31.

11     When reviewing a decision on the standard of reasonableness, the analysis will be concerned with "the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process [and also with] whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law": see Dunsmuir, above, at para 47; Khosa, above, at para 59. Put another way, the Court should intervene only if the Decision was unreasonable in the sense that it falls outside the "range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law."

VI. STATUTORY PROVISIONS

12     The following provisions of the Act are applicable in this proceeding:

·       Obligation on entry

·       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, 

[...]

·       (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. 

[...]

·       Temporary resident

·       22. 

(1) A foreign national becomes a temporary resident if an officer is satisfied that the foreign national has applied for that status, has met the obligations set out in paragraph 20(1)(b), is not inadmissible and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1). 

* * *

·       Obligation à l'entrée au Canada

·       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) 

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. 

[...]

·       Résident temporaire

·       22. 

(1) Devient résident temporaire l'étranger dont l'agent constate qu'il a demandé ce statut, s'est déchargé des obligations prévues à l'alinéa 20(1)b), n'est pas interdit de territoire et ne fait pas l'objet d'une déclaration visée au paragraphe 22.1(1). 

13     The following provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 are applicable in this proceeding:

·       Issuance

·       179. 

An officer shall issue a temporary resident visa to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national 

·       (a) 

has applied in accordance with these Regulations for a temporary resident visa as a member of the visitor, worker or student class; 

·       (b) 

will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2; 

·       [...] 

* * *

·       Délivrance

·       179. 

L'agent délivre un visa de résident temporaire à l'étranger si, à l'issue d'un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis: 

·       a) 

l'étranger en a fait, conformément au présent règlement, la demande au titre de la catégorie des visiteurs, des travailleurs ou des étudiants; 

·       b) 

il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2; 

·       [...] 

VII. ARGUMENT

·       A. 

Applicant

14     The Applicant submits that the Officer erred in finding that she would not return to Egypt when her visa expired: Dhanoa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 729; Cao v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 941. The Applicant relies primarily on the fact that her husband will remain in Egypt, where he works and earns a high income. She also has other family members who will remain in Egypt. The Applicant says that her lack of employment prospects in Egypt cannot be a valid consideration because no applicant would ever receive a work permit if that were the standard.

15     The Applicant also submits that the Officer erred in discounting her employment letter. The Officer should have contacted the Applicant or her employer if there were questions regarding the letter. The Applicant also complains that, in an earlier temporary resident visa application, she was not advised that there were problems with the employment letter. As a result, it was reasonable for her to expect that the letter was sufficient. Further, it is uncommon for employees in Egypt to have social insurance numbers.

16     Finally, the Officer erred in finding that there was no documentation concerning the Applicant's husband. The Applicant submitted documents relating to his employment, property ownership and tax records.

·       B. 

Respondent

17     The Respondent objects to the evidence attached to the Applicant's affidavit which was not before the Officer. Judicial review should proceed only on the basis of the evidence that was before the decision-maker: Lemiecha v Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 72 FTR 49 at para 4; Samsonov v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1158 at para 7.

18     The duty to provide reasons for temporary resident visas is minimal. An applicant has no legal right to obtain a visa and bears the burden of establishing the merits of his or her request; and the refusal of a temporary resident visa has a minimal impact on someone who is outside of Canada: Donkor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 141; Obeng v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 754; Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 620. The Officer met the minimal requirements. The Officer gave reasons for not being satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay. The Officer considered the Applicant's family ties in Canada and the limited employment prospects in her home country. There was also insufficient contact information in the Applicant's employment letter and she failed to provide evidence of a social insurance number. The Officer is entitled to consider the totality of the circumstances: Wong v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 246 NR 377 (FCA); Pei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 391 at para 15. The Officer clearly explained why the Applicant's application was rejected and the Applicant simply asks the Court to reweigh the evidence.

19     The Federal Court has held that an officer has no obligation to provide a visa applicant with a running score of the weaknesses in an application: Thandal v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 489 at para 9; Nabin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 200 at paras 7-10 [Nabin]; Kaur Soor v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1344 at para 12. The Officer had no obligation to notify the Applicant of his or her concerns.

20     Finally, the Officer was not bound by any findings in the Applicant's previous visa applications. The Officer was only required to consider the evidence placed before him or her in this application. Regardless, there are no findings concerning the employment letter in the previous decision.

·       C. 

Applicant's Reply

21     In reply, the Applicant reiterates her submissions and submits that if the Officer required her social insurance number, the Officer could have contacted the Applicant for the information. She was unable to include it in her original application because of long delays in obtaining it from the Egyptian government.

VIII. ANALYSIS

22     The Respondent is right to point out that it is not open to the Applicant to supplement the record and ask the Court to consider materials and facts that were not before the Officer. See Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20. Consequently, I will only address the concerns raised by the Applicant on the basis of the record that was before the Officer.

23     Two principal points arise out of the Decision: the Officer's concerns about the contact information on the Applicant's employment reference letter, and "No docus for husb."

24     It is not clear why the contact information provided was a problem. The contact information on the reference letter included the company's address and gave the cell phone of the general manager who signed the letter. The reasons say that the "[f]ax number may have been erased and there are no land line numbers which is uncommon in Egypt." It is unclear whether the contact information prevented the Officer from making appropriate investigations with the company, or whether it caused the Officer to doubt the authenticity of the reference letter. After reading the GCMS notes, my conclusion is that the Officer is simply pointing out certain features of the reference letter but they do not play any material role in the Decision which is clearly based upon the Officer's determination that he or she was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of the visa period.

25     The reasons say there were no documents for the Applicant's husband, and the GCMS notes elaborate and say "No docus provided this time as evidence of husb's employment and reasons why he is not accompanying. I believe that husb is only staying behind to act as a tie to Egypt."

26     The CTR contains a letter from the Applicant in which she says that she is submitting the following "financial support documents" (CTR at 16):

·       a) 

The experience letter for the Applicant's spouse's work as a civil engineer in Saudi Arabia; 

·       b) 

The current employment letter and the payslips for the Applicant's spouse as a civil engineer from the local unit of Talkha-El Dakahha -- Egypt; 

·       c) 

The business registration for the spouse's engineering consulting company; and 

·       d) 

The Notice of Assessment from the "National Taxes Authority" for the years 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2005 related to the consulting office income. 

27     The Applicant explains that "[m]y spouse is working as a civil engineer in the local unit of Talkha city, El Dakha, Egypt from 07/04/1997 till 07/10/1997 and from 01/01/2002 till now" [sic, emphasis removed]. She also explains that "[m]y spouse has an Engineering Consulting Office from 01/09/2004."

28     My review of the CTR reveals that it does not include the evidence of the husband's current employment (as referred to above) and does not explain why he is not accompanying. There is an experience letter relating to the Applicant's husband's work as a civil engineer in Saudi Arabia which indicates that he worked for the company until 2001 (CTR at 18). There are a series of other documents following this experience letter but they all appear to be written in Arabic.

29     Applicants are advised that their supporting documents must be provided in English or French, or be translated into English or French (Government of Canada, Guide 5487 -- Applying for a Work Permit outside of Canada):

·       Translation of documents

·       Unless instructed otherwise by a CIC employee, all supporting documentation must be: 

·       * 

in English or French; or 

·       If it is not in English or French, it must be accompanied by: 

·       * 

the English or French translation; and 

·       * an affidavit from the person who completed the translation; 

·       * 

and a certified photocopy of the original document. 

·       [Emphasis in original] 

30     The CTR does not contain translated copies of the documents. The documents may be, as the Applicant says, evidence of her husband's current employment and consulting work. But without translated copies of the documents, there was no way for the Officer to know what information they contained, and there is no way for the Court to know.

31     In her application record, the Applicant includes (at 85, 87, 92-94):

·       a) 

A "Certificate of Experience" for her spouse showing that he returned to work for the local unit for Talka city center on 12/01/2002. While the translation is not clear, it appears that he continues to work for the company ("he one of staff headed by the center city of Talkha so far..."); 

·       b) 

A "Statement of Salary Synonyms" for the month of July 2013; 

·       c) 

A "Tax Card" from the Arab Republic of Egypt. It is unclear what information the tax card provides. It provides a starting date of 01/09/2004 and says it was issued for an individual. An annex, dated 15/05/ 2011, provides that the Applicant's husband requested that the address of an engineering office be moved as of 16/11/2006. The final page is described as a "Tax avowal/ wealth avowal" which simply states it was issued 15/05/2011 and expires 14/05/2016. 

32     There is no evidence that any of this documentation was before the Officer. It does not appear in the CTR which, in accordance with Rule 17 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, is a certified record of the documents that were before the Officer.

33     At the oral hearing of this application, the Applicant questioned the accuracy and the completeness of the CTR but offered no reason why it should be incomplete. The record shows that the Applicant has made several visa applications that have been refused and she does not appear to be entirely clear as to what she submitted with each application as she regards them all as part of one application, which they are not.

34     The Applicant also requested further time to provide the Court with evidence that the CTR is incomplete and that she did submit the documentation referred to in this application as listed above.

35     If the Applicant felt that the CTR was incomplete, she should have obtained a copy of it and submitted evidence of its incompleteness with her application. In fact, the covering letter that accompanies the CTR shows that a copy of the CTR was sent to the Applicant in accordance with Rule 17. I have no evidence before me that the Applicant did not receive her copy or that she could not have raised any issues regarding the CTR in her application.

36     In any event, even if the information that the Applicant says she submitted had been before the Officer, it is entirely unclear what the documentation establishes. The tax card references an engineering office but it does not establish that her husband has a consulting business. There is no other documentation to establish her husband's consulting business, and there is no evidence as to the reasons why he is not accompanying the Applicant.

37     On the record before me, then, I cannot say that the Officer was mistaken regarding the husband's documentation, or that it gives rise to a material reviewable error.

38     The Respondent is right to say that the Applicant has no legal right to a visa and bears the burden of establishing the merits of her request and providing the information and documentation required for the Officer to make an assessment. See Hamza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 264 at para 22 [Hazma]; Nabin, above, at para 7.

39     It is also clear that, in this context, the Officer was under no obligation to contact the Applicant with a view to correcting any weaknesses or gaps in her application. The Officer's concerns are in relation to the sufficiency of the evidence, not with the credibility or authenticity of the evidence. See Lam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 152 FTR 316 at para 4; Hassani v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1283 at para 24; Hamza, above, at para 24. I can see no procedural fairness issue.

40     All in all, I can find no reviewable error with this Decision that would require it be returned for reconsideration.

41     Both sides agree there is no question for certification and the Court concurs.

JUDGMENT

·       THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that

·       1. 

The application is dismissed. 

·       2. 

There is no question for certification. 

RUSSELL J.