很多申请过加拿大签证经历过拒签，有些人觉得自己的材料天衣无缝还是被拒了，而且拒的十分蹊跷。当然，在CCSS留学移民中心的持牌顾问眼中，很多签证注定就是很难过签，比如大龄无雅思签学签，在加拿大读学院的配偶申请工签，或者在加拿大没有工作的小孩的父母申请探亲。不过在我们的持牌顾问看来，拒签并不是一件很可怕的事，拒签有拒签的理由，如果发现签证官找的理由确实也不算是一个非常站得住脚的理由时买我们便可以来一点更刺激的方法，上诉。
对于经验丰富的持牌顾问认为，很多时候签证被拒签，签证官候并不是真的不相信你不会按时离开加拿大，甚至有时候他们非常清楚你会按时离开，只是他们内部有“政策”或者“名额”限制他们这么做。而这些“内部政策”和“名额限制”并没有写到移民法里，换句话说，这些“内部政策”和“名额限制”是移民局自身内部的一些对于签证过签率数据把握的一种操作手段，所以说他们的拒签都是不符合移民法，对于这类的拒签是很容易上诉成功的。
当然真的出现这种情况也是在一签充分准备的条件下(如果一签出现一些明显的拒签理由，就不存在上诉的情况，直接根据拒签理由重新完善材料)，所以对于任何一个准备加拿大签证的申请人来说，一签一定要把材料准备的很完美，以防出现这种“特殊情况”，做好上诉的准备，一旦拒签立马上诉。
提示：如果出现拒签，一定要在移民局调档。
那么问题来了，有什么内容加在一签里会让上诉起来比较容易呢?
拒签的点
临时居民签证(包括旅游签、学签和工签)拒签无非都是引用不符合移民法这一条：
20 (1)(b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the visa or other document required under the regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
也就是你要让相信你会在移民局授权的时间内离开加拿大。
请注意移民倾向并不能成为拒签理由之一，事实上签证官早就不允许用移民倾向拒签了：
22 (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay.
签证官的决定要合理
签证官的权利不是无限大的，很早的判决就支持既然提交材料是签证申请人的责任，那么签证官的责任就是根据手头的材料作出“合理”的判断：
While the burden of proof is on the applicant, the decision must be based on reasonable findings of fact, and must be based on the record at hand. (Zhang v Canada, 2014 FC 499, at para 8)
合理的标准在2008年最高法判决Dunsmuir v New Brunswick中有更详细法理阐述，在实际应用中，经常被提到的有以下几点。
学习/工作/旅行的计划要合理
这个合理的标准非常低，比如“找不到工作要进修”，“不喜欢目前的专业”等都可以成为想要去学习的理由。签证官经常用“你为什么不在国内深造”拒签，事实上法院不会支持这种论调，早在2001年法官就认为“为什么不在其他国家深造”是无关的(Wang v Canada, 199 FTR 302, at para 10).
家庭约束力
学签家庭约束力是非常强的一个因素，法官非常支持“独生子”会按时离开加拿大，在法官看来，如果独生子(女)的父母在中国有稳定的工作，而申请中提到了这一条，那么签证官假象申请人会黑在加拿大就是非常不合理的。
The visa officer failed to address a very relevant factor; namely the applicant’s ties to China which would be evidence of her likelihood to return to China upon the completion of her studies. Her ties in China are her parents, who are both successful, and have established themselves in significant employment. Her father is employed as a director general of the police and her mother is employed as a financial manager for the government and for several other companies. The applicant is an only child and stated in her affidavit that she would be returning to China because her parents would miss her. I think it was also apparent from the record that the applicant would miss her parents. The applicant is pursuing her studies in Canada upon the recommendation of her father. The applicant was still a minor at the time of her application for a student visa, and her father seeks a Canadian education for his daughter. There is no evidence that the visa officer considered and rejected this relevant factor with respect to whether the applicant was a bona fide visitor. The visa officer must demonstrate that she considered a highly relevant factor which contradicts the conclusion that the applicant would not return to China. (Guo v Canada, 2001 FCT 1353, at para 17)
除了独生子，在国内有工作、有房子、有兄弟姐妹、有亲戚，都可以作为约束力的证明之一，只要签证官没有在拒签理由里面提到这些，就很容易上诉成功。
知道黑在加拿大的后果
在解释信中提及自己了解黑在加拿大的后果是有必要的，如果你写了，签证官没能考虑到并写到拒签理由里，就很有可能会上诉成功。
The decision to submit the applicant’s declaration is not a banal gesture. The declaration is a clear statement that the applicant understands the consequences of overstaying his welcome in Canada, and for this reason, it will not happen. It cannot be presumed to be true, as the policy considerations of such a blanket approach would be disastrous: every applicant would simply submit a similar declaration in order to “prove” that he would not overstay his temporary permit. However, the statements made in this declaration must be weighed by the officer in light of the totality of the evidence and the personal circumstances of the applicant. (Cao v Canada, 2010 FC 941, at para 13)
不要有其他硬伤
如果能做到上述几点，加上别出现其他硬伤，签证官通常就找不出什么有料的理由可以拒签了，如果调档后发现拒签理由类似下图这种，简直就是为了上诉准备的：
