今天收到两个来自移民局的司法复核和解。
客户W，旅游签转学签，在我们合作的某校读完一学期语言之后达到正课直录要求，被移民局以“不能在境内申请学签”为由拒签。我们建议客户根据IRPR 215(f)(iii)申请司法复核，Application Record交上去后被告回复说客户不符合IRPR 215(e)并据此反对司法复核。我们表示被告律师没看清楚条款，客户根本不是根据IRPR 215(e)，而是215(f)(iii)申请的学签，于是我们次日便建议客户回复了移民局，大意有两点：
1. 申请人绝对符合境内旅游签转学签的条件；
It is also important to bear in mind that the Applicant applied for her study permit pursuant to Subsection 215(1)(f)(iii) of the IRPR. She did not need to satisfy all of Subsections 215(1)(a) to (g) of the IRPR simultaneously, instead she was fully eligible to apply from within Canada if she belonged to one of them. Therefore, the Applicant was not required to hold a temporary resident permit that was valid for more than 6 months in this case.
2. 被告不应该反对司法复核，因为这个案子清楚简单，如果最终打到法院，申请人将根据Dharmendrakumar, 2015 FC 900等案的判决要求法庭判移民局支付给原告3000加币。
It is argued for the Applicant that “Special Reasons” are justified in this case because the evidence readily shows that there has been an obvious mistake made by the Officer who failed to take Subection 215(1)(f)(iii) of the IRPR into account to consider the Applicant’s Study Permit applications. The Respondent unreasonably refused to consent to the Applicant’s application for leave and for judicial review, forcing the Applicant to suffer a waste of time and resources through an expensive judicial review. The hearing before the Court are totally unnecessary. For this reason， it is likely that there are special circumstances in this case and the Applicant requests an award of $3, 000 in costs.
回复移民局之后，我们又让客户打电话和被告律师沟通，被告律师表示已经了解了情况，正在和移民局最后确定。今天被告律师发来信请求和解。
客户D的女儿L，未满18岁，旅游签转学签，申请的时候已经在读高中，有在读证明，依据的是IRPR 215(f)(i)，随后被拒签，理由也是“不符合在加拿大境内申请的条件”。7月22日递交Application Record，8月21日（最后一天）收到被告律师和解信。
