@前言
請點擊以下連結，重溫這系列的頭三個部分：
另外，我們亦重貼以下10大拒簽理由：
- 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.
以下兩個案例，visa officer拒簽引用以上多個原因，但申訴人已手持加拿大多次往返旅遊簽證，申請SP仍被拒，簽證官卻偏偏沒有考慮這一點！將這邏輯引申至來自香港的申請人，他們來加拿大不用旅遊簽證，簡單做個eTA就可以，意義與以上兩個申訴人一樣，簽證官拒簽SP申請時忽略了這一點，同樣屬於不合理。
@Rahmati vs Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI)
請點擊這裡參看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- 申請人是伊朗公民，已獲IRCC發出多次往返簽證Temporary Resident Visa (TRV)，有效期內可以自由往來，SP申請被拒。
- Page 5 para 14 – GCMS note有一大堆理由，officer總結 “on balance of probabilities, I am not satisfied the PA is a genuine student who will depart at the end of their authorized period of stay[.] Application refused.” 意思是，擔心申請人學簽期滿後不離境 (注：完全沒有提及申請人手持TRV)。
- Page 5 para 16 – “I find that the Officer’s decision lacks a coherent chain of analysis linking the information and documents submitted by the Applicant in support of her application to the Officer’s conclusion that she would not leave Canada at the end of her stay. An officer must explain why an applicant has failed to satisfy the concerns that led to the adverse decision in order to meet the Supreme Court’s requirements of transparency and intelligibility.” 意思是，如果officer不提供分析，其判斷流於武斷。
- Page 6 para 19 – “The Applicant emphasizes that she holds a multiple entry TRV valid to January 11, 2023. She argues that the Officer unreasonably ignored this aspect of her evidence and the fact that she did not need a study permit to enter Canada. The relevance of a TRV to an officer’s assessment of an application for a study permit was recently considered by my colleague, Justice Pentney, in Mekhissi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 230 (Mekhissi). In that case, the officer had concluded that the applicant, who held a valid TRV, was seeking a study permit with a view to establishing himself permanently in Canada. Justice Pentney found that it was not possible to follow the officer’s logic because, if the applicant wished to settle in Canada, he need not apply for a study permit.”
- Page 7 para 20 – “The omission of any reference in the decision to the effect of the Applicant’s TRV on a concern regarding the purpose of her visit is a significant omission that undermines the logic of the decision.”
- Page 8 para 23 – “In conclusion, the absence of logical analysis in the decision regarding the Applicant’s ties in Canada and the omission to consider her valid TRV result in a decision that is not transparent and intelligible. Further, the decision is not justified against the evidence presented by the Applicant. For these reasons, the application is allowed.”
@Mekhissi vs MCI
請點擊這裡參看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- 申請人是阿爾及利亞人，有直系家庭成員在加拿大，手持TRV自由往返，之前亦試過短暫旅遊加拿大兩次。
- Page 2 para 7 – Visa officer拒簽SP的GCMS note有一大堆理由，但迴避了申請人可以自由出入加拿大旅遊探親：
“[The applicant] will not be motivated to leave Canada because at least two members of his immediate family are in Canada.
The [applicant] failed to demonstrate added value and consistency in undertaking the proposed studies in Canada considering that he already holds a licence degree (2018) in [sic] and is in his first year of his MASTER’s degree studies in economics. Following my review of the file, I am of the view that the applicant submitted an application for a study permit with a view to establishing himself permanently in Canada, and I am not satisfied that he will be a bona fide student who will leave Canada if required, after an authorized stay. Application refused.”
- Page 6 para 18 – “The decision failed to refer to the fact that the applicant’s passport, at the time of his application for a study visa, showed that he had a multiple entry visitor visa. The officer’s finding that the applicant was looking for a study permit to settle in Canada is illogical, considering the fact that he has a multiple entry visa, valid from March 2017 to November 2026. Therefore, he did not need a study visa to enter Canada.” 意思大概是，officer認為申請人以讀書為手段留在加拿大，但既然已經有TRV可以出入境，為何還要申請SP？如果大家都看到相約的意思，便看得出officer是何等不合乎邏輯，沒有解釋為何可以旅遊入境但不可以讀書。
- Page 7 para 22 -申訴人爭辯說， “The applicant notes that Canada’s policy has evolved. The government now wants to attract students, and encourage them to continue their journey in Canada after their studies. The post-graduation work visa is a testament to this intention. In this context, the fact that an applicant harbours another intention simultaneous with an intention to study, so long as this intention is legitimate, cannot be a ground for refusal.”
- Page 8 para 25 – “I agree with the applicant that it is not possible to follow the officer’s logic because the applicant has the right to come to Canada with his multiple entry visa, and therefore, if he wishes to settle here, he need not apply for a study permit. The officer’s decision failed to consider this information, which was in the applicant’s file at the time of the decision.” ，法官認同申請人以上說法。
- Page 9 para 28 – “I agree that the decision in this case is unreasonable, as I cannot follow the officer’s logic with respect to the applicant’s motivation. This is a fundamental flaw in the decision.”
@結論
很多DIY失敗的案子，香港朋友應該懂得，甚至已經申請調檔拿GCMS note，黃先生問大家，簽證官是否有盡責解釋，申請人來加拿大旅遊不是問題，但讀書卻怕SP期滿後不會離境？
最後，仍然說撰寫Study Plan時不要說學成後留下來申請Stream A移民否則即死的，是自創理論，抑或跟章法出牌呢？
起來，不願做奴隸的人們！
