Another day, another judicial review. The client is an Indian national and sought a work permit to come here and work in an administrative capacity. The application was refused without an interview with the Officer's notes providing an insight as to the attitudes, stereotypes and generalizations apparently commonly held in that particular visa office: Given the great disparity in applicants earning power in Canada versus in India, as well as the better working condition [sic] available in Canada, it appears that applicant would have little financial incentive to return to India if admitted to Canada. Given all of the above, I am not satisfied that applicant meets burden of R200(1)(B) that applicant would leave Canada at the end of authorized stay. Application Refused There is of course clear Federal Court jurisprudence that warns Officers from relying on generalizations and stereotypes (Lin. v. MCI 2004 FC 96; Yuan v. MCI 2001 FCT 1356). There was no mention by the Officer as to this particular applicant's circumstances (educated and professionally employed) and the fact that she had a very strong reason to leave Canada at the end of her "authorized stay" (a home, a husband and two children). I argued: It is... Read more →