对于经验丰富的持牌顾问认为，很多时候签证被拒签，签证官候并不是真的不相信你不会按时离开加拿大，甚至有时候他们非常清楚你会按时离开，只是他们内部有“政策”或者“名额”限制他们这么做。而这些“内部政策”和“名额限制”并没有写到移民法里，换句话说，这些“内部政策”和“名额限制”是移民局自身内部的一些对于签证过签率数据把握的一种操作手段，所以说他们的拒签都是不符合移民法，对于这类的拒签是很容易上诉成功的。

当然真的出现这种情况也是在一签充分准备的条件下（如果一签出现一些明显的拒签理由，就不存在上诉的情况，直接根据拒签理由重新完善材料），所以对于任何一个准备加拿大签证的申请人来说，一签一定要把材料准备的很完美，以防出现这种“特殊情况”，做好上诉的准备，一旦拒签立马上诉。

提示：如果出现拒签，一定要在移民局调档，在我们之前的推送文章中介绍过拒签为何要调档，如果没有看到的朋友可以在本篇文章最下方链接进入阅读。

那么问题来了，有什么内容加在一签里会让上诉起来比较容易呢？

临时居民签证（包括旅游签、学签和工签）拒签无非都是引用不符合移民法这一条：

20 (1)(b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

也就是你要让相信你会在移民局授权的时间内离开加拿大。

请注意移民倾向并不能成为拒签理由之一，事实上签证官早就不允许用移民倾向拒签了：

22 (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.

签证官的权利不是无限大的，很早的判决就支持既然提交材料是签证申请人的责任，那么签证官的责任就是根据手头的材料作出“合理”的判断：

While the burden of proof is on the applicant, the decision must be based on reasonable findings of fact, and must be based on the record at hand. (Zhang v Canada, 2014 FC 499, at para 8)

合理的标准在2008年最高法判决Dunsmuir v New Brunswick中有更详细法理阐述，在实际应用中，经常被提到的有以下几点。

The visa officer failed to address a very relevant factor; namely the applicant’s ties to China which would be evidence of her likelihood to return to China upon the completion of her studies. Her ties in China are her parents, who are both successful, and have established themselves in significant employment. Her father is employed as a director general of the police and her mother is employed as a financial manager for the government and for several other companies. The applicant is an only child and stated in her affidavit that she would be returning to China because her parents would miss her. I think it was also apparent from the record that the applicant would miss her parents. The applicant is pursuing her studies in Canada upon the recommendation of her father. The applicant was still a minor at the time of her application for a student visa, and her father seeks a Canadian education for his daughter. There is no evidence that the visa officer considered and rejected this relevant factor with respect to whether the applicant was a bona fide visitor. The visa officer must demonstrate that she considered a highly relevant factor which contradicts the conclusion that the applicant would not return to China. (Guo v Canada, 2001 FCT 1353, at para 17)

除了独生子，在国内有工作、有房子、有兄弟姐妹、有亲戚，都可以作为约束力的证明之一，只要签证官没有在拒签理由里面提到这些，就很容易上诉成功。

The decision to submit the applicant’s declaration is not a banal gesture. The declaration is a clear statement that the applicant understands the consequences of overstaying his welcome in Canada, and for this reason, it will not happen. It cannot be presumed to be true, as the policy considerations of such a blanket approach would be disastrous: every applicant would simply submit a similar declaration in order to “prove” that he would not overstay his temporary permit. However, the statements made in this declaration must be weighed by the officer in light of the totality of the evidence and the personal circumstances of the applicant. (Cao v Canada, 2010 FC 941, at para 13)

如果能做到上述几点，加上别出现其他硬伤，签证官通常就找不出什么有料的理由可以拒签了，如果调档后发现拒签理由类似下图这种，简直就是为了上诉准备的：

CCSS拥有专业ICCRC持牌顾问团队，为大家提供靠谱的签证服务，如果您受到拒签的困扰，请添加微信号askccss，我们的线上顾问会为您提供最专业的帮助！

渠道资源或代理合作请发送邮件至[email protected]