Docket: IMM-1237-14
Citation:
2015 FC 438
Toronto, Ontario, April 9, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NANA ADU GYAMFI ADJEM
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Reasons
delivered orally in Toronto on April 8, 2015)
[1]
Nana Adu Gyamfi Adjem seeks judicial review of
the decision of a visa officer denying him a temporary resident visa.
[2]
Mr. Adjem failed to satisfy the visa officer that
he would leave Canada at the end of his visit. In coming to this conclusion,
the visa officer had regard to Mr. Adjem’s travel history, his family ties in Ghana and in Canada, the purpose of his visit, his current employment situation, and his personal
assets and financial position. The visa officer was not satisfied that Mr.
Adjem was financially secure, or that he had sufficient funds for the trip.
[3]
Mr. Adjem says that the visa officer’s decision
was unreasonable, as the officer failed to have regard to relevant information.
Although not pursued in his oral submissions, he also submitted that the visa
officer’s decision was “wicked”, and that it was arrived at in bad faith.
[4]
Dealing first with the question of bad faith,
suffice it to say that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support
Mr. Adjem’s allegation of bad faith. The fact that he may not agree with the
officer’s decision does not mean that the officer acted in bad faith.
[5]
Insofar as the reasonableness of the officer’s
decision is concerned, Mr. Adjem has not identified any information that was
provided in support of the visa application that was overlooked by the officer,
nor has he identified any relevant considerations that were taken into account
by the officer in refusing his visa application. It is readily apparent from
the officer’s reasons that the visa officer understood the applicant’s
employment situation, his travel history, and the location of his various
family members. The officer was also clearly aware that Mr. Adjem’s brother
would be hosting his visit to Canada, and would be covering his expenses while
he was in this country.
[6]
What Mr. Adjem is essentially asking me to do is
to reweigh these factors and come to a different conclusion than did the visa
officer. That is not the task of this Court sitting in judicial review. While a
different visa officer may have come to a different decision based upon the
information in the record, Mr. Adjem has not persuaded me that the visa
officer’s decision was unreasonable.
[7]
Having failed to establish the existence of a
reviewable error in the visa officer’s decision, it follows that the
application for judicial review will be dismissed. I agree with the parties
that this case is fact-specific and does not raise a question that is suitable
for certification.
Email this Content