今天收到兩個來自移民局的司法複核和解。
客戶W，旅遊簽轉學簽，在我們合作的某校讀完一學期語言之後達到正課直錄要求，被移民局以“不能在境內申請學簽”為由拒簽。我們建議客戶根據IRPR 215(f)(iii)申請司法複核，Application Record交上去後被告回復說客戶不符合IRPR 215(e)並據此反對司法複核。我們表示被告律師沒看清楚條款，客戶根本不是根據IRPR 215(e)，而是215(f)(iii)申請的學簽，於是我們次日便建議客戶回復了移民局，大意有兩點：
1. 申請人絕對符合境內旅遊簽轉學簽的條件；
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. 被告不應該反對司法複核，因為這個案子清楚簡單，如果最終打到法院，申請人將根據Dharmendrakumar, 2015 FC 900等案的判決要求法庭判移民局支付給原告3000加幣。
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.
回復移民局之後，我們又讓客戶打電話和被告律師溝通，被告律師表示已經了解了情況，正在和移民局最後確定。今天被告律師發來信請求和解。
客戶D的女兒L，未滿18歲，旅遊簽轉學簽，申請的時候已經在讀高中，有在讀證明，依據的是IRPR 215(f)(i)，隨後被拒簽，理由也是“不符合在加拿大境內申請的條件”。7月22日遞交Application Record，8月21日（最後一天）收到被告律師和解信。
