Date: 19981221
Docket: IMM-5403-97
| BETWEEN: GABRIEL JOACHIM CHUNG |
Appellant
| AND: THE MINISTER of CITIZENSHIP and IMMIGRATION, |
| SECRETARY of STATE |
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer made at the Canadian High Commission in Kingston, Jamaica, on December 1st, 1997, refusing the applicant temporary entry to Canada as a student, which student authorization was sought by the applicant after he was denied permanent resident status1.
[2] In support of his application, the applicant argues that the decision of the visa officer refusing him entry to Canada as a student was influenced by that of his colleague visa officer in IMM-290-98. Absent any evidence to that effect, I am of the view that this argument can not stand, since the visa officer seems to have considered the whole of the record before him in rendering his decision.
[3] The applicant further argues that the visa officer erred in refusing to grant a student authorization on the ground that he intended to enter Canada for a temporaty purpose only and that he is not a prospective immigrant.
[4] I do not share the applicant's view. A "visitor", as defined in section 2(1) of the Immigration Act, is "a person who is lawfully in Canada, or seeks to come into Canada, for a temporary purpose...".
[5] Going through the decision and the affidavit of W.R. Heatherington, the visa officer who processed, interviewed and evaluated the application submitted by the applicant, I am convinced that the visa officer formed his opinion on the basis of the applicant's lengthy previous stay - 9 years - in Canada as a refugee claimant, as well as his present and future intentions - he did not want to return to India even if he failed to qualify for permanent residence - . To that extent, I am satisfied that the visa officer's discretion was based upon the evidence before him. Accordingly, it was not unreasonable for him to conclude, as he did, that the purpose of the applicant, in seeking to enter Canada, was not a temporary one.
[6] For these reasons, this application must be dismissed. This case raises no serious question of general importance to be certified.
J.F.C.C.
__________________
1 The denial of permanent resident status was the subject of a judicial review application in IMM-290-98. Both cases were heard together in Toronto, on December 3, 1998, and a decision in IMM-290-98 is filed under separate cover.