每月有超過120萬香港人瀏覽immiDaily網站，發掘不同的移民資訊。即使immiDaily與不同的服務供應商合作，我們亦有作深入的調查及篩選，以確保移民人士可以在immiDaily上找到有質素的服務供應商。而我們的編採團隊不受商業因素影響並保持獨立，相關內容與資訊僅以移民人士的最佳利益角度出發。歡迎直接與immiDaily合作的伙伴進行免費的私人咨詢👉 值得信賴的專家 或者你亦可以 即時討論一切與移民相關的資訊、參與在外地的移民過來人的分享活動、連結身處不同城市的香港人👉 加入 immiDaily Discord 社群
前言
請點擊這裡，參考Case Law分享系列的文章，我們會不斷提供最新案例與大家分享，讓大家知道visa officer對於SP申請的審核往往很粗疏，申請人因此而吃眼前虧，唯有在Federal Court of Canada才有機會拿回公道。遺憾的是，有些不懂章法出牌的DIYers卻獲批SP，但跟足章法的老手又會被拒，真的無奈！
Shohratifar vs Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI)
請點擊這裡看原文，簡單導讀如下：
- 申訴人是來自伊朗的23歲小伙子，目標是Humber College，SP於2021.12.31被拒，visa officer不放心他完成學業後會回國，基於以下考慮點：
- “lack of sufficient ties to his home country”
- “had not demonstrated that he had sufficient funds”
- “the program was not a reasonable expense given his socio-economic situation”
- “his study plan was not reasonable given his education and employment history”
以上的評語，大家是否覺得似曾相識？如果發生在你身上，你應該不會贊成，甚至無名火起三千丈，但現實是visa officer有discretionary authority，眼前虧是吃定了。
- Page 2 para 2 – 法官未提供分析前，節目預告率先提供看法如下：
- “The Officer failed to address relevant evidence that went against their conclusions”，簽證官沒有細心考慮申請人提供的資料就拒簽，言下之意，如果有看清楚的話便未必會拒簽。
- “[…]failed to explain to Mr. Shohratifar the basis for some of these key findings in light of the evidence”，與第一點異曲同工，簽證官沒有提供理由，為何申請人提供的證據不能令他滿意，再說白一點，簽證官「只是不滿意」，卻沒有解釋「為何不滿意」。
- Page 4 para 8 – 簽證官說 “study plan ‘does not appear reasonable given the applicant’s employment and education history.’”，法官說 “the Officer does not explain what it is about Mr. Shohratifar’s employment and education history that make his proposed study plan unreasonable.”
- Page 4 para 9 – 承上，法官說 “It is unclear how the Officer reached their conclusion that the study plan was not reasonable in these circumstances. The Officer provided no justification explaining what it was in Mr. Shohratifar’s employment or education history that made this study plan unreasonable. An explanation is required.”
- Page 5 para 12 – 法官繼續說 “the Officer failed to explain how they reached their conclusion that the Applicant did not have sufficient funds.”，進一步諷刺代表移民部長的律師說 “The justifications offered by the Respondent at the judicial review hearing were attempts to fill the gaps in the Officer’s reasons.” 。這方面是在司法覆核中犯了技術錯誤，因為代表律師不能僭建資料。最重要的反而是這一句， “It was unreasonable for the Officer to not explain why they concluded that Mr. Shohratifar had insufficient funds and that based on this view of his finances, that the program was not a reasonable expense.”，意思是在司法覆核程序，公平與否的責任由簽證官自己擔當。
結論
經過分享這個於2023.02.15新鮮出爐的司法覆核，我們想帶出的意思，不是鼓勵SP被拒的香港朋友進行司法覆核，而是勇於重新嘗試，從大量的Case Law學習，充分準備下一次申請，包括引用Case Law支持自己的Study Plan。
如果想了解更多或需要任何諮詢服務, 你可以填寫以下表格直接聯絡 Alfred Wong。