Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-08-26 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 911 File numbers IMM-387-01 Decision Content Date: 20020826 Docket: IMM-387-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 911 BETWEEN: BARJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER ROTHSTEIN, J.A. (ex officio) [1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer finding that the applicant was not a "dependent son" as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978. [2] The issue is whether the applicant, being over 18 years of age, was enrolled and in attendance as a full-time student in an academic program. [3] The applicant makes three arguments: 1. The Court is bound to apply the plain meaning rule of interpretation which, if applied to the definition of "dependent son", means that only physical attendance is relevant. 2. If a qualitative assessment is appropriate, it was not properly done in this case. 3. The visa officer should have accepted the applicant's story as to why he had failed Plus 2 (Grade 12) three times and was taking it a fourth time. [4] As to the first point, the visa officer's decision was that he was "not satisfied [the applicant] was attending any classes". He came to this conclusion because the applicant had failed Plus 2 three times and because he could not answer a very basic question about who the first Prime Minister of India was,…
Read full judgment
Sharma v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-08-26 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 911 File numbers IMM-387-01 Decision Content Date: 20020826 Docket: IMM-387-01 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 911 BETWEEN: BARJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER ROTHSTEIN, J.A. (ex officio) [1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer finding that the applicant was not a "dependent son" as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978. [2] The issue is whether the applicant, being over 18 years of age, was enrolled and in attendance as a full-time student in an academic program. [3] The applicant makes three arguments: 1. The Court is bound to apply the plain meaning rule of interpretation which, if applied to the definition of "dependent son", means that only physical attendance is relevant. 2. If a qualitative assessment is appropriate, it was not properly done in this case. 3. The visa officer should have accepted the applicant's story as to why he had failed Plus 2 (Grade 12) three times and was taking it a fourth time. [4] As to the first point, the visa officer's decision was that he was "not satisfied [the applicant] was attending any classes". He came to this conclusion because the applicant had failed Plus 2 three times and because he could not answer a very basic question about who the first Prime Minister of India was, even though he was purporting to study political science. Even if only physical attendance is relevant, the visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant was attending classes. [5] However, Sandhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 287 N.R. 97, has determined, at paragraph 24, that whether an individual has been enrolled and is in attendance as a full-time student in an educational program requires consideration of whether he is a genuine, meaningful and bona fide student. Sandhu is binding on me. [6] Thus, even if the applicant was physically in attendance, the visa officer would be justified in determining if the applicant was a genuine, meaningful and bona fide student. The fact that the applicant had failed Plus 2 three times and could not answer a basic question about his course caused the visa officer to determine that he was not. That was not an unreasonable determination. [7] As to the second point, I would agree with the applicant that it may not be reasonable to ask an applicant only one question about his courses and make a determination on that basis alone. But here, the applicant had failed Plus 2 three times. In that context, I do not think the visa officer was obliged to go further when the applicant could not answer a question of the most basic nature. [8] As to the third point, the applicant's story was that he had failed Plus 2 three times because of strikes in the school and terrorism which caused his family to turn out all lights at 7:00 p.m. so that he could not study. [9] The applicant's sister, who was also interviewed, did not have the same story. The visa officer found the applicant's explanation "totally vague and pointless" and he did not believe it. There is no basis for the Court to interfere with this determination. [10] The judicial review should be dismissed. "Marshall Rothstein" Judge Ottawa, Ontario August 26, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: IMM-387-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: BARJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. DATED: MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2002 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Ravi Jain For the Applicant Ms. Neeta Logsetty For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ravi Jain Green & Spiegel For the Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20020826 Docket: IMM-387-01 BETWEEN: BARJINDER KUMAR SHARMA Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca