Study Plan部署參考資料：Case Law系列分享2

Case Law 案例導讀 (持續更新)

@前言

請點擊這裡，重溫Case Law系列的第一篇。我們重提簽證官拒簽SP的說法：

  1. Weak ties to home country,
  2. Strong ties in Canada,
  3. The program of study is not for progressive learning but redundant or even reversal learning,
  4. The desired program of study is unreasonable given the Applicant’s established economic development, such as education achieved and work experience gained, to name a few,
  5. The desired program of study is unrelated to the Applicant’s current establishments,
  6. There is no mention of a clear career path upon Program completion,
  7. The potential benefits do not justify the costs of overseas study, and
  8. Similar opportunities are available in Hong Kong, etc.

第一篇與上述的3-7點有關，今次則是與7及8點有關，一共2個簡單Case Law。

@Jalilvand et al. vs Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI)

請點擊這裡看12頁原文，簡單導讀如下：

  • Page 2 para 2 – 申請人SP被拒的一系列原因
  • Page 4 para 10 – Federal Court of Canada會看看簽證官的決定是否reasonable，根據之前的案例， reasonableness有以下三個標誌點：
    1. Justification – 簡單理解是，不是簽證官單方面所說的，而是為何會這樣說，英文是 “not what they said, but why they said it” 。
    2. Transparency – 所有評核要毫無遺漏、白紙黑字記錄在案。
    3. Intelligibility – 所指的是清晰、容易理解，也可以引申為同理心，如果由不同visa officer處理，看法大致上都應該相同。

如果簽證官拒簽的理據不能通過上述三點的測試，便算是unreasonable。

  • Page 6 para 18 – 簽證官 “not satisfied the proposed studies would be a reasonable expense”  ，但法官說 “it is not the role of the officer to determine the value of learning to an applicant, nor to offer career counselling advice”。
  • Page 7 para 22 – 簽證官審批這SP有多方面的偏頗，未能通過以上三個標誌的測試，因此司法覆核成功。

@Lingepo vs MCI

請點擊這裡看8頁原文，簡單導讀如下：

  • Page 2 para 3 – 簽證官在GCMS note寫下一系列拒簽原因，我們只針對 “the cost of the study program appears disproportionate to me when I consider the nature of the previous studies”   。
  • Page 5 para 13 – 與以上Case Law一樣，reasonableness有三個標誌測試點，我們不再重覆。
  • Page 6 para 17 – “The officer’s concerns about the disproportionate cost of the study program lack justification.”
  • Page 6 para 18 – “it is not the officer’s role to determine the value of learning to an applicant.”
  • Page 7 para 21 – “the Court cannot […] understand the officer’s reasoning and the basis for his conclusions from his reasons. The decision therefore lacks the hallmarks of reasonableness.”

@節目預告

下一篇將會與大家探討聯邦法院法官怎樣演繹A22(2) Dual intent:

“An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.”

@結論

有些人說，Study Plan萬萬不可以讓簽證官知道SP申請人有打算申請Stream A的念頭，否則立刻被拒，因此削足就履，編造故事……

如果是這樣，大多數被拒簽的DIY申請就是用上述思維的，何解？

起來，不願做奴隸的人們！