Date: 20010724
Docket: IMM-3374-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 825
Calgary, Alberta, Tuesday the 24th day of July 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
GODDY O. ABANZUKWE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DAWSON J.
[1] These are the reasons for dismissing, orally from the Bench, Mr. Abanzukwe's application for judicial review.
[2] Mr. Abanzukwe, who applied for permanent residence in Canada in the assisted relative category, complained that the visa officer erred by not giving any weight to a letter from his employer which purported to outline the duties Mr. Abanzukwe fulfilled in the course of his employment. Mr. Abanzukwe also asserted that the visa officer breached the duty of fairness by not advising him of her concerns about his experience as a Financial Manager and about the employer's letter, and by not affording Mr. Abanzukwe with the opportunity to respond to the visa officer's concern about the employer's letter.
[3] The relevant facts are as follows. Mr. Abanzukwe was interviewed by the visa officer on June 8, 1999 in Accra, Ghana. The visa officer recorded, in the portion of the CAIPS notes made during the course of the interview, that:
IN SPITE OF MY ASKING, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ME A CLEAR ANSWER OF THE SIZE OF THE COMPANY, EVENTUALLY, ENDED UP TELLING ME THAT THERE ARE 15 PERSONS IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, AND THERE ARE MANY DEPARTMENTS. DESCRIPTION OF HIS JOB WAS ALSO DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT: HE PLANS, CONTROLS, DIRECTS, ORGANIZES, ... MORE PRECISELY, HE SOURCES FUNDS WHEN HIS COMPANY IS ASKED TO PROVIDE BIG SUPPLY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE CASH FLOW TO BUY UPFRONT.
[4] Following the interview, Mr. Abanzukwe received a letter dated July 9, 1999 from the Canadian High Commission in Accra which requested that he provide additional documentation, including a recent reference letter from his employer stating his duties.
[5] The requested documents were received by the Canadian High Commission in September of 1999 and included a letter from Mr. Abanzukwe's employer. That letter was brief and consisted of an almost word-for-word recitation of the description of duties of a Financial Manager found in the NOC Manual. The visa officer recorded in the CAIPS notes that she reviewed the letter and found the applicant's claim that he performed the requisite duties lacking in credibility. In her affidavit, the visa officer further stated that she found it implausible that an employer would have had access to the NOC Manual in order to write a reference letter. Accordingly, the visa officer gave little weight to the letter.
[6] As to the weight given to the employer's letter by the visa officer, it is within the
expertise of a visa officer to weigh documentary evidence. I am not persuaded that the visa officer committed any reviewable error by assigning little or no weight to the letter based on the wording used in the letter and its formulaic content.
[7] As to the other alleged errors, the basic requirement of fairness is that an applicant knows the case to be met and has a fair opportunity to meet that case.
[8] I am satisfied that Mr. Abanzukwe knew the case to be met. While Mr. Abanzukwe swore in his affidavit that he left the interview advised that his application would be approved, and that no concerns were expressed to him about his experience as a Financial Manager, the visa officer denied so advising Mr. Abanzukwe. The visa officer swore in her affidavit that she did not find Mr. Abanzukwe to be an impressive candidate, that she did not lead him to believe that everything in his application was all right, and that by the end of the interview she had decided to give Mr. Abanzukwe an opportunity to produce further evidence of his employment.
[9] As the CAIPS notes evidence the difficulties which the visa officer encountered in obtaining information about Mr. Abanzukwe's experience, and because further information was requested shortly after the interview, I prefer the evidence of the visa officer as to what transpired at the interview.
[10] Specifically, the CAIPS notes reflect the fact that the visa officer questioned Mr. Abanzukwe concerning the duties he fulfilled for his employer. The visa officer also testified on cross-examination that she was certain of this fact because during the course of the interview much time was spent discussing his work. That, together with the fact that after the interview Mr. Abanzukwe was asked to provide a letter from his employer outlining his duties, satisfied me that Mr. Abanzukwe was sufficiently aware of the case to be met.
[11] With respect to the argument that the visa officer breached the duty of fairness by not affording to Mr. Abanzukwe the opportunity to respond to the officer's concerns about the employer's letter, in Asghar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 1091, IMM-2114-96 (August 21, 1997) (F.C.T.D.) Justice Muldoon, at paragraph 21, noted that:
It is still not clear in what circumstances procedural fairness requires that the visa officer apprise the applicant of his concerns. However, from the authorities cited above one may conclude that this duty does not arise merely because the visa officer has not been convinced, after weighing the evidence, that the application is well founded. The visa officer's task is precisely to weigh the evidence submitted by the applicant. In the Court's words, in light of the onus that is on the applicant to produce evidence, it is not apparent that the visa officer should be compelled to give him a "running-score" at every step of the proceeding.
[12] I respectfully agree with that statement of the law. Applying that proposition, I do not conclude that the visa officer acted unfairly by not communicating with Mr. Abanzukwe again after she reviewed the employer's letter, but proceeded, on all of the evidence before her, to reject the application.
[13] It follows that the application for judicial review will be dismissed. Counsel did not pose any question for certification.
ORDER
[14] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
Email this Content