拒签后如何通过上诉获得签证 | 深度解读移民法

2016-06-09 加拿大留学生会








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.



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.



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。


这个合理的标准非常低,比如“找不到工作要进修”,“不喜欢目前的专业”等都可以成为想要去学习的理由。签证官经常用“你为什么不在国内深造”拒签,事实上法院不会支持这种论调,早在2001年法官就认为“为什么不在其他国家深造”是无关的(Wang v Canada, 199 FTR 302, at para 10).



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)




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)