{"id":13675,"date":"2013-04-28T13:34:10","date_gmt":"2013-04-28T13:34:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/immigrationca.staging.wpengine.com\/fr\/singh-v-canada-citizenship-and-immigration\/"},"modified":"2016-12-03T09:14:56","modified_gmt":"2016-12-03T09:14:56","slug":"singh-v-canada-citizenship-and-immigration","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/singh-v-canada-citizenship-and-immigration\/","title":{"rendered":"Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>IMM-4442-09<\/p>\n<p>2010 FC 212<\/p>\n<p>February 23, 2010<\/p>\n<p>Principle Established: Work Permit refused because applicant will likely not leave Canada.<\/p>\n<p>The applicant was a citizen of India who was denied a Temporary Work Permit on two occasions because he did not demonstrate sufficient ties to his home country and that he would not leave Canada after his period of stay.<\/p>\n<p>He applied for judicial review to question whether the decision of the Immigration Officer was reasonable.<\/p>\n<p>The Court found that it was reasonable for the Visa Officer to infer that he would not leave Canada at the end of his Work Permit because of the following:<\/p>\n<p>1.No evidence of English abilities were provided to prove he could understand the nature of his Canadian job.<\/p>\n<p>2.No documentation of the applicant\u2019s income in India were provided.<\/p>\n<p>3.The fact that he was married and had three children, he would likely be sponsoring them to come to Canada with little incentive to return to India after their stay.<\/p>\n<p>4.Documentation regarding his assets in India were not corroborated.<\/p>\n<p>The application for judicial review was dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>IMM-4442-09 2010 FC 212 February 23, 2010 Principle Established: Work Permit refused because applicant will likely not leave Canada. The applicant was a citizen of India who was denied a Temporary Work Permit on two occasions because he did not demonstrate sufficient ties to his home country and that he would not leave Canada after&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":481,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5524,5527,5511,3337],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13675","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"hentry","6":"category-5524","7":"category-april","8":"category-c99-canada-case-law-fr","9":"category-non-classifiee","11":"category-5527","12":"category-5511","13":"category-3337","14":"description-off"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13675","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/481"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/immigration.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}