今天上午收到客户Z发来的微信，上海已经重新签发了她儿子的旅游签证，这位客户的案子到此算是告一段落。
客户2015年5月就来过我们多伦多办公室，可能是因为当时我们办公室很破吧（不过我们现在很多办公室也很破，我们并没有把钱花在装修办公室上），客户没有选择我们，而是找了基于蒙特利尔的一家机构给他小孩做的学签，我们在《旅游签转学签三周年总结》中提到过，蒙特利尔很多机构做旅转学有一种奇怪的思路，比如很多中小学生还没学签就让客户上学了。这名小孩在境内被拒签了两次，洛杉矶又拒签了一次，中途给妈妈续签Visitor Record还被拒签了一次。当然事情到这里还不是很严重，毕竟客户有旅游签，留得青山在，学签总是能办下来的。
可惜客户在蒙特利尔机构的建议下，回到中国之后又在给小孩在上海递交了一次学签，被上海取消了旅游签。这种案子并不陌生，之前我们也有申请学签反被取消旅游签、两次上诉终下签的案例。在那次案例之后，我们了解到了上海比较喜欢白本护照，而不喜欢在加拿大有黑历史的案子。无论如何，我们是不会把在加拿大有拒签记录的申请人递交上海再签的。如果能如实解释在加拿大的悲惨遭遇并回国老老实实申请学签，香港会是不错的选择。
我们恰恰是在这几乎已经走投无路的时候接手的客户，正如客户自己说的那样，饶了一大圈，还是逃不过要来找我们。客户在2016年10月和我们签约并入读多伦多的语言学校办理旅游签转学签，这么做主要是为了小孩。然后自然是以学签拒签和取消旅游签不合法申请司法复核，最后虽然觉得希望不大，但是客户依然想要尝试给小孩再递交一次旅游签。
案子一开始并不顺利，重新申请的旅游签被毫无意外地拒签了。客户选择的温哥华上诉区又遇到了一位死磕派资深被告律师，洋洋洒洒递交了两份宣誓和5个论点，甚至我们见到了“取消签证和学签拒签是两个决定，申请人应该递交两份司法复核”这样的纯程序性论点，此外还有申请人“虽然每次读书都少于6个月，但依然是非法读书”这样崭新却正确的论点。
关于程序性事项，被告只是在胡搅蛮缠，希望能用一些专业的论点吓到原告。取消签证的决定和学签拒签的决定都写在一个notes里，这明显不是两个决定而是一个，即使是两个决定，只要能证明其中的联系，法院为了节省司法资源也通常愿意合并审理。
4. However, the Officer refused the Applicant’s study permit and cancelled the TRV at the same time. They were all recorded in the same paragraph of GCMS notes of the same application. The Applicant submits that there was only one decision.
5. Even if there were two decisions, the Court usually will make an exception to Rule 302 when there is a connection between the decisions the applicant seeks to contest under one application for judicial review.
Council of the Innu of Ekuanitshit v. Canada, 2015 FC 1298, at para 49
Lessard-Gauvin v. Canada, 2016 FC 227 at para 7
仅从程序性事项反驳是不够的，在加拿大境内读书6个月以内是移民局官网明确表示合法的，即使去年法院明晰了非法读书的具体标准，法院的判决也是发生在客户回国之后，客户没有办法在那之前就知道6个月之内的学习也可能是非法的。我们的主要论点就是，即使客户因为被中介忽悠不知情地在加拿大境内非法读书，但客户每次都在有效期到之前按时离开了加拿大，并且严格按照法律，回到中国写了一封诚挚的解释信重新申请学签，签证官认为他不会按时离开加拿大是明显不合理的决定。最重要的是，如果无法证明客户有虚假陈述等行为，签证官并没有取消客户旅游签证的权利。
16. To study less than six months without a study permit was allowed by the Minister, whose website read,
You can study in Canada without a study permit if: the duration of your course of program of study is six months or less and you will complete your course or studies within the time you are allowed to stay in Canada.
Zhang v. Canada, 2016 FC 964, at paragraph 1217. The Respondent cited Zhang to establish that the Applicant engaged unauthorized study even if the duration was less than six months. However, the decision of Zhang was wrote on August 29, 2016. There was no way for the Applicant to know that he engaged unauthorized study prior to that date since the website clearly indicated a study of less than six months without a study permit was legal.
18. Even if the Applicant accidentally engaged in unauthorized study, it is nothing to do with his intention to leave. In fact, he left Canada before the end of his authorized stay each time.
19. In Zhang, the officer refused the applicant pursuant subsection 221(a) of the IRPR, which was irrelevant to the applicant’s intention to leave Canada, and does not bar the applicant from applying for a study permit six months after the end of her unauthorized study.
20. In the case at bar, the officer refused the application simply because he was not satisfied the Applicant will leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, who cancelled the Applicant’s temporary resident visa without notifying him, despite that he left Canada before his authorized stay each time.
25. In the case at bar, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant will leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay without outlining specific reason, while the Applicant left Canada on time in his previous visits and applied for a study permit according to the Act and Regulations. The Officer left most of the Applicant’s application documents unmentioned. The Officer cancelled the Applicant’s valid temporary resident visa without notifying him and giving him an opportunity to respond.
26. There are also several serious questions which were not discussed by the courts before. Does the Officer has the authority to review the Applicant’s temporary resident visa application while he was submitting a separate application? Does the Officer has the authority to cancel the Applicant’s temporary resident visa if there were no fraud or inadmissibility findings? Was there a breach of nature justice if the officer did so without giving the Applicant an opportunity to respond?
27. The Applicant submits that an arguable case has been established, and he has more than “a chance to win” in judicial review. The Applicant also submits that there are several questions to be determined.
今年2月，法官批准了开庭，3月被告律师提出了和解（看起来很可怕的被告律师和解起来也是毫不犹豫），虽然因为非法学习不能重审学签，但移民局愿意重审旅游签被取消的决定。与此同时，妈妈旅游签转学签严重超时，我们怀疑是因为之前境内被拒签了Visitor Record的后遗症，但调档发现其实是签证官再次不熟悉境内旅游签转学签的条件，而且这位新手连拒签信都没发出来才导致系统里一直没有消息。在我们和移民局沟通后妈妈的学签获得通过。
这并不是事情的结束，如果孩子的旅游签不通过，给妈妈拿到学签也没有意义。最后一步是孩子旅游签的重审，但妈妈已经心灰意冷，连澳洲的学习计划都已经做好，如果旅游签下不来，客户就去澳大利亚了。重审材料中我们递交了法律论点和客户在国内的约束力，解释之前在加拿大学签被拒的悲惨经历和无心之失，希望新的签证官能够恢复申请人的旅游签。
这一次，我的客户小Z希望他的旅游签能够被恢复。作为移民顾问我有三个点意见要阐释。首先，根据移民部的操作手册，只有在欺骗和虚假陈述的案件中才能够取消申请人的签证。如果没有违反A40的发现，小Z的签证应当被恢复。其次，这次既然是重新审理，审查的文件应当是申请人第一次递交的材料，而不是新的材料，这也是遵从司法部律师和解的精神。第三点，如前文所述，申请人和他的母亲从来没有在加拿大非法停留过。
申请人在签发签证之后首先去加拿大旅游了一次。他被签发的是多年多次往返签证。加拿大联邦法院已经判决过，申请人的临时停留意图不需要维持不变，唯一的要求只是申请人“临时停留”的意图存在。于是后来，申请人在获得CAQ后使用同一张签证在魁北克就读了短期课程，这个决定是在当地不可靠的机构的建议下作出的。他被告知没有获得学习许可也可以就读不超过6个月，并且可以同时申请学习许可以便更长时间的就读。遗憾的是他境内申请学习许可的申请被拒绝了。即使签证官认为小Z有过非法读书的经历的判断是正确的，小Z也只是无心之失，而且这一切和他是否会按时离开加拿大没有任何关系。事实上，他每次都按时离开了加拿大，而且在意识到问题所在后立刻就回到了中国并根据移民法的要求重新申请了学习许可。如果他不是一个具有真实意图（bona fide）的访问者，他完全可以非法滞留在加拿大而不是离开。小Z和他的家庭都是守法的公民，他们了解旅游签的使用条件，而且没有任何打算操纵移民漏洞的意思。
上海处理重审的消极态度是我们预见到的，递交重审材料之后两个月依然没有消息，而普通的旅游签只要一周。我们只好和之前两次上诉的客户一样再给上海上一个强制令。这次效果拔群，强制令递交后不到一周旅游签获批。
