What is the effect of a decision by a Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on a minor student visa application?

I will deal briefly with the third issue first. In Wong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)1 I wrote: The minor applicant applied for a visa to allow him to come to Canada to pursue a course of studies of some nine months duration. Such an application is for permission for a clearly "temporary purpose". It is in the nature of student visas that they are issued for limited periods of time. If the minor applicant, together with his family, concluded in the future that he wished to continue to pursue his studies in Canada, a renewal of his visa or a new visa would be required. It would be open to the Respondent to examine the totality of the circumstances each time that the minor applicant applied for renewal or a new visa. If, at any stage during the course of the minor applicant"s education it became apparent that the minor applicant"s ties to Hong Kong had so deteriorated as to demonstrate that they were insufficient to ensure his return there, then refusal of the request for renewal or for a new visa would clearly be justified. But on the basis of the evidence that was before the visa officer on the 12th of August, 1996, I conclude that it was capricious for the visa officer to reach a decision that the minor applicant"s application to come to Canada was for other than a "temporary purpose".1 While the student authorization here applied for was for a longer term, the evidence in this matter regarding the temporary nature of the applicant"s stay in Canada would appear to have been stronger than it was in Wong. That being said, I wish to turn to the issues of fettering of discretion and reasonable apprehension of bias which I am satisfied should be determinative in this matter.