@前言
有人說，申請SP萬萬不要讓簽證官知道你會留下來申請Stream A，要說學成後會回港發展，否則即死。請點擊這裡，IRCC對dual intent的最新演繹，內容我們不再重覆。
今期介紹3個Case Law，全部與A22(2) dual intent有關，是聯邦法院法官的看法，原文如下：
“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.”
之前提及的8點拒簽原因，我們在這裡加入另外兩點，就是今期的專題討論：
- Weak ties to home country,
- Strong ties in Canada,
- The program of study is not for progressive learning but redundant or even reversal learning,
- 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,
- The desired program of study is unrelated to the Applicant’s current establishments,
- There is no mention of a clear career path upon Program completion,
- The potential benefits do not justify the costs of overseas study, and
- Similar opportunities are available in Hong Kong, etc.
- I am not satisfied that you will leave Canada at the end of your stay as required by paragraph R216(1)(b) of the IRPR.
- The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application.
@Gu vs Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI)
請點擊這裡看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- Page 2 para 1 – “The officer found that the Applicant’s intentions in Canada did not appear to be of a temporary nature.”
- Page 7 para 16 – “Subsection 22(2) of the Act clearly sets out that an intention by the Applicant to become a permanent resident does not preclude her from becoming a temporary resident if she can establish that she will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for her stay under the study permit.”
- Page 7 para 17 – “It is therefore important not to confuse an intention to become a permanent resident with the requirement of establishing that the Applicant will leave Canada at the end of the study period.”
- Page 8 para 20 – “Subsection 22(2) specifically precludes the officer from drawing such an inference unless it is supported by some other facts giving rise to a concern that the Applicant will not leave Canada at the end of the study period.”
- Page 8 para 21 – “A foreign national who has remained in Canada under validly issued work or study permits should not be penalized for having followed the immigration legislation of this country. The simple fact the Applicant has legally remained in Canada cannot reasonably support a conclusion that she would choose to go “underground” or try to stay in Canada without authorization once her study permit expires.”
@Mahida vs MCI
請點擊這裡看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- Page 2 para 5 – “The Officer decided it would be illogical for the Applicant to pursue an expensive program in Canada when similar programs are available in India.” (注：我們借用回應上述第8點拒簽理由)
- Page 8 para 21 – “This Court has accepted that an officer’s analysis of a study permit application is highly discretionary and should be afforded a significant degree of deference on review.” ，法官原則上認同簽證官有前線的隨意決定權，但para 22補充要accurate及comprehensible。
- Page 10 para 26 – “The Officer simply does not engage with this evidence or explain what is inadequate about the explanation.”
- Page 10 para 26 – “The explanation is detailed and entirely logical and the Officer’s response lacks any kind of justification, transparency or intelligibility.”
- Page 12 para 31 – “There is nothing inherently illogical about the Applicant wanting to eventually live in Canada (a goal that she may or may not achieve at some point in the future)”
- Page 13 para 33 – “Other reasons are given in the Decision for a negative conclusion but, as the Officer makes clear, he is weighing the incentive to remain in Canada against the Applicant’s ties to India. The errors I have mentioned are extremely material to this weighing process and hence render it unreasonable.”
@Ali et al. vs MCI
請點擊這裡看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- Page 3 para 5 – “Officer was not satisfied that the proposed program of study would improve the Principal Applicant’s career prospects enough to offset the costs of study abroad.” (注：我們借用回應第7點拒簽理由)
- Page 5 para 9 – “The Court will not intervene unless the Officer came to a conclusion that is not transparent, justifiable or intelligible and falls outside the range of possible acceptable outcomes which are defensible based on the facts and the law.”
- Page 11 para 23 – “As to the written submissions of the parties as to dual intent, as stated by Justice Gascon in Solopova (at para 30) this Court has confirmed that a person may have the dual intent of immigrating and of abiding by the immigration law respecting temporary entry (Kachmazov v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 53 at para 15). The two intentions are complementary, not contradictory.”
@結論
首先，IRCC的最新取態是鼓勵申請人關於來加拿大的初步和最終目的從實招來，否則就是untruthful。另外，以上3個Case Law，法官一致認為先拿SP讀書，後申請Stream A並無不妥，兩者甚至是互補而不是相沖。
所以，DIY準備說學成後回港發展，根據以上的引經據典，就算獲批都只是胡亂出招而已。
起來，不願做奴隸的人們！
