LOIC CERDY KAMGUIA KOUAM Applicant v. MINISTER OF, 2015 FC 858

Date: 20150714 Docket: IMM-8305-14 Citation: 2015 FC 858 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, July 14, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN:LOIC CERDY KAMGUIA KOUAMApplicantandMINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS I. Preliminary [1] The Court finds that some of the documents cited by the applicant in support of his application for judicial review are not inthe certified tribunal record.

It is trite law that judicial review of an administrative decision must be based on the evidence presentedbefore the administrative decision-makers (Runchey v Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FCA 16 at para 31 (Runchey); Gitxsan TreatySociety v Hospital Employees’ Union, (FCA), [1999] FCJ 1192 at para 13 (Gitxsan)). Thus, the “new evidence” in theapplicant’s record cannot be accepted by the Court. II.

Introduction [2] This is an application pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA) for judicial review of adecision dated December 15, 2014, in which a visa officer refused the applicant’s study permit application. [3] For the following reasons, the application is dismissed. III.

Background [4] The applicant is a citizen of Cameroon who applied for a study permit at the Canadian Embassy in Dakar on December 1,2014. [5] The applicant was accepted into the minor in arts and science program at the Université de Montréal in October 2014. [6] On December 4, 2014, the applicant obtained a Quebec Acceptance Certificate. [7] On December 15, 2014, the visa officer refused the applicant’s study permit application, finding that he had not met therequirements of the IRPA and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (IRPR). [8] Specifically, the officer found that the applicant had not demonstrated that he has [translation] “sufficient and availablefinancial resources, without working in Canada, to pay his tuition fees for the course or program of studies that he intends to pursue”(Visa Officer’s Decision, Applicant’s Record, at page 9).

IV. Statutory provisions [9] Subsection 11(1) of the IRPA stipulates that a study visa is required to enter Canada with the intention of pursuing studies: Application before entering Canada Visa et documents

(1) A foreign national must, beforeentering Canada, apply to an officer for a visaor for any other document required by theregulations. The visa or document may beissued if, following an examination, theofficer is satisfied that the foreign national isnot inadmissible and meets the requirementsof this Act. 11.

(1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à sonentrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visaet autres documents requis par règlement.L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, à lasuite d’un contrôle, que l’étranger n’est pasinterdit de territoire et se conforme à laprésente loi. [10] Sections 216 and 220 of the IRPR establish the criteria for granting a study visa: Study permits Permis d’études216.

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), anofficer shall issue a study permit to a foreignnational if, following an examination, it isestablished that the foreign national 216.

(1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et(3), l’agent délivre un permis d’études àl’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, leséléments suivants sont établis :(

a) applied for it in accordance with this Part;

a) l’étranger a demandé un permis d’étudesconformément à la présente partie;(

b) will leave Canada by the end of the periodauthorized for their stay under Division 2 ofPart 9;

b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la périodede séjour qui lui est applicable au

titre de lasection 2 de la

partie 9;(

c) meets the requirements of this Part;

c) il remplit les exigences prévues à laprésente partie;(

d) meets the requirements of subsections30(2) and (3), if they must submit to amedical examination under paragraph 16(2)(

b) of the Act; and

d) s’il est tenu de se soumettre à une visitemédicale en application du paragraphe 16(2)de la Loi, il satisfait aux exigences prévuesaux paragraphes 30(2) et (3);(

e) has been accepted to undertake a programof study at a designated learning institution.

e) il a été admis à un programme d’études parun établissement d’enseignement désigné.Financial resources Ressources financières220. An officer shall not issue a study permitto a foreign national, other than one describedin paragraph 215(1)(

d) or (e), unless theyhave sufficient and available financialresources, without working in Canada, to 220. À l’exception des personnes visées auxsous-alinéas 215(1)

d) ou e), l’agent ne délivrepas de permis d’études à l’étranger à moinsque celui-ci ne dispose, sans qu’il lui soitnécessaire d’exercer un emploi au Canada, deressources financières suffisantes pour : (

a) pay the tuition fees for the course orprogram of studies that they intend to pursue;

a) acquitter les frais de scolarité des coursqu’il a l’intention de suivre;(

b) maintain themself and any familymembers who are accompanying them duringtheir proposed period of study; and

b) subvenir à ses propres besoins et à ceuxdes membres de sa famille quil’accompagnent durant ses études;(

c) pay the costs of transporting themself andthe family members referred to in paragraph(

b) to and from Canada.

c) acquitter les frais de transport pour lui-même et les membres de sa famille visés àl’alinéa b) pour venir au Canada et enrepartir. V.

Standard of review [11] Previous jurisprudence demonstrates that the determination of sufficient financial resources for the purposes of granting astudy permit, which is within the visa officer’s discretion, is reviewed under the reasonableness standard of review (Hong v Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 463 at paras 11 to 13 (Hong); Thiruguanasambandamurthy v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1518 at para 27). [12] The Court will therefore only intervene if the reviewed decision-making process lacks transparency and intelligibility or if thedecision under review does not fall within the range of acceptable and defensible outcomes in respect of the totality of the evidencesubmitted (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 SCR 190 at para 47).

VI. Analysis [13]

Section 220 of the IRPR, above, imposes on the applicant the requirement to demonstrate, with clear and convincingevidence, that he has sufficient financial resources to pay the tuition fees and maintain himself during his studies in Canada(Weldegerima v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 268 at para 13; Kibangoud v Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 692 , [2008] FCJ 921 at para 11). [14] The applicant claims that the visa officer’s finding that he does not meet that criterion is unreasonable because it was madewithout regard to the evidence. [15] The applicant claims that the evidence submitted to the officer in support of his study permit application, including a bankstatement demonstrating the payment of tuition fees in the amount of $22,015 to the Université de Montréal, a [translation] “letter of

responsibility” and a declaration of financial support, whereby the applicant’s mother agreed to cover all of his tuition and living costsduring his stay in Canada, and documents demonstrating the existence of assets in the name of the applicant’s mother, were notconsidered by the officer in the decision-making process. [16] The Court cannot agree with the applicant’s argument. [17] The Court finds that some of the documents cited by the applicant in support of his application for judicial review are not inthe certified tribunal record.

It is trite law that judicial review of an administrative decision must be based on the evidence presentedbefore the administrative decision-makers (Runchey, above, at para 31; Gitxsan, above, at para 13).

Thus, the “new evidence” in theapplicant’s record cannot be accepted by the Court. [18] Moreover, the visa officer’s notes from the Global Case Management System (GCMS) show that the officer’s central concernwas based on the sufficiency and the source of the applicant’s financial resources. [19] The officer’s reasons suggest that she considered the evidence before her in her assessment of the applicant’s study permitapplication, but deemed it insufficient and inconclusive with respect to the source of the financial resources raised (GCMS Notes,Affidavit of Elizabeth McGirr, at page 7). [20] Regarding the officer’s expertise in granting study permits and her analysis, which is anchored in the evidence, the Court is ofthe opinion that the officer’s decision is reasonable (Hong, above, at para 13; Ngalamulume v Canada (Minister of Citizenship andImmigration), 2009 FC 1268 , [2009] FCJ 1593 at para 16).

VII. Conclusion [21] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance to becertified. “Michel M.J. Shore” Judge Certified true translation Janine Anderson, Translator FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-8305-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: LOIC CERDY KAMGUIA KOUAM v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: JULY 13, 2015 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: SHORE J.

DATED: JULY 14, 2015 APPEARANCES: Olivier Chi Nouaka FOR THE APPLICANT

Alain Langlois FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Olivier Chi Nouaka Counsel Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPLICANT William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec FOR THE RESPONDENT