@前言
請點擊以下連結，重溫此系列之前的文章：
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.
以下三個案例，與以上7及8點有關，法官的判決是，來加拿大留學的成本，只要申請人能夠提供證明負擔，簽證官沒權力作成本效益評估，繼而拒簽。
@Lingepo vs Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI)
請點擊這裡參看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- 申請人是剛果民主共和國公民。
- Page 2 para 3 – 簽證官拒簽理由， “Following my review of the application for a study permit, I find the applicant’s plans to study in Canada questionable due to his previous studies and personal background. In addition, the cost of the study program appears disproportionate to me when I consider the nature of the previous studies, the economic situation (income and assets presented) of the applicant and/or the immediate family, and the potential job prospects/salaries. On the basis of my review of the file, I am not satisfied that the applicant would be a bona fide student who would leave Canada, if required, after an authorized stay. Application denied.” 我們只針對成本效益的質疑。
- Page 6 para 17 – “The officer’s concerns about the disproportionate cost of the study program lack justification.”
- Page 6 para 18 – “It is recognized that it is not the officer’s role to determine the value of learning to an applicant.”
- Page 7 para 21 – “The decision therefore lacks the hallmarks of reasonableness.”
@Liu vs MCI
請點擊這裡參看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- 申請人為中國公民，打算先接受ESL培訓。
- Para 11 – “Counsel for the applicant further submits that it was not in the Visa Officer’s domain to suggest that ‘the potential benefits of the proposed study are not justified by the cost of the proposed plan.’” 這是申訴人代表律師所提出的理據，很明顯十分熟書。
- Para 16 – “To suggest that the proposed plan of studies is not justified by the cost of the proposed plan is almost absurd. It is not to the Visa Officer to determine how much money should be spent in improving one’s lot in life. This is purely a subjective and irrational observation.” 這是法官評語。
- Para 18 – “This Visa Officer’s assessment, if allowed to stand and applied to others, would obviate any possible further applicant from obtaining a visa to study in Canada.” 這是法官的重磅評語，意思是，如果他現在不主持公道判申訴人得直的話，等於默許簽證官的不合理處理方式，這案例亦會對未來的SP申請人十分不利。
@Carin vs MCI
請點擊這裡參看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- 申訴人是菲律賓公民。
- Page 4 para 9 – “Given the Applicant’s demonstrated ability to afford the expense and her specific reasons for choosing the program, I find that the Officer’s bald statement that ‘the benefits of the intended studies do not seem to warrant the cost and difficulty of undertaking foreign education” falls short of the reasonableness standard.’”
- Page 5 para 11 – “I recognize that a visa officer is entitled to considerable deference when granting or refusing study permits and that it is not the role of this Court to reweigh the evidence on the record or to substitute its own conclusions for those of the visa officer. However, I find that even when read as a whole, the requirements of a reasonable decision have not been met in this instance, as I am unable to understand the reasoning that led to the Officer’s conclusion.” 意思是，法官明白前線簽證官有一定的隨意權力，是要受尊重的。同時，也不是加拿大聯邦法院的職責去審核申請人提交的材料。但是，很明顯簽證官的決定未能符合reasonable decision的標誌，很起碼法官難以理解簽證官拒簽的理由。
@SP撰寫兩大相反方向，何去何從？
從網上媒體，包括YouTube，大家看到的一面倒是要說學成後會回港發展，除了絕少例外，大家心知肚明不是事實，同時被拒的SP也往往是說學成後會回港，至少證明雖然有不少成功案例，但那並不是護身符。然而，如果在政策方面看的話，就算成功，只是打亂章吃糊，吃糊後振振有詞的也只是事後孔明而已。
如果你看完黃先生的一系列分享後，仍舊偏向以上部署，是個人選擇，但我們認為你完全可以DIY，理由如下：
- 你只需要跟着IMM5959的最後一頁，對study plan的簡單指引着筆，以向前的態度如實寫出來，而不是看着上述10個拒簽理由，反方向左右你下筆。前者是很自然的，後者則是很刻意的，簽證官很容易看得出來。
A study plan, approximately one page in length, written by the student. The study plan should include the following information:
|
- YouTube上有很多自封的「專家」，會打沉你的書寫能力，例如英文文法、詞彙使用、句子結構等等。其實這全部是自創理論，嚇人而已，如果刻意附和，反倒減低了真誠度，這方面黃先生鼓勵大家放膽自由書寫，不怕句子結構出錯，因為贏的是誠意，並非英文書寫能力！
- 如果你偏向學成後回港的方向，又不介意付費用找人代理的話：
- 如果對方沒有移民部認可的專業資格，出於經濟利益，會毫不猶豫接受你的委託。言下之意，他主要是順從你的意願而執筆，能夠提供的added-value十分有限。既然如此，何不索性DIY呢？
- 如果對方有移民部認可的專業資格，仍願意接受你的委託，等於出於經濟利益而自殘，因為要取悅於你而不能跟章法出牌。
@結論
這篇文章是黃先生部署Study Plan系列的最後一篇，只是分享其章法而已，所謂道同則相謀，黃先生除了應用以上的硬資料外，更會針對以上10個拒簽理由，總結為3個問題，透過客戶的回應，作為參考而尋找書寫靈感，但僅此而已。換句話說，你所提供的思考點，有可能完全不被使用，最重要的是，Study Plan是由黃先生及客戶共同簽署的，你絕對有最後把關的權利。
起來，不願做奴隸的人們！
