Date: 19990105
Docket: IMM-1614-98
Between :
SIBYLLE GOEBEL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Eliane Wassler, a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Bonn, Germany, dated March 24, 1998, refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence as a "self-employed person".
[2] The applicant first argues that the visa officer makes an error of fact when she notes the wrong interview date (March 10 and not March 1) and that she did not immediately transfer her interview notes into the CAIPS log. As I have already indicated from the bench, these inaccuracies are not central to the issue at hand.
[3] The applicant further argues that the visa officer misinterpreted the definition of "self-employed" person when applied to her.
[4] Waldman interprets "self-employed person" as follows:1
| In order to qualify as one making a significant contribution to the economy of Canada, the applicant must demonstrate that he or she intends to establish a business which will provide an important and needed service to the area to which they are destined in Canada. This could be in the form of a needed trade or service. In assessing an application made under this head, the visa officer must consider the applicant's past experience, management skills, business ability and financial assets. . . . Obviously, the final decision with respect to the question of significant contribution, will rest with the visa officer, who will be required to consider all of the aspects of the case and to determine whether or not the applicant will make a significant contribution. In making this determination, the visa officer will be under a duty to act fairly, and to give the applicant an opportunity to address any concerns. |
|
[5] It is to be noted that a self-employed person must receive at least one point in the category of experience in order to obtain a visa. After the interview in the case at bar, the applicant was awarded no points in this category. Also, the self-employed person will be required to satisfy the visa officer that he or she has worked as a self-employed person in the past and has a proven track record in this field.
[6] While I sympathize with the applicant and surmise that she would like to contribute both financially and culturally to Canada, upon reviewing the evidence, I cannot find that the visa officer's conclusions were unreasonable as the applicant did not show she had a "proven track record" as a self-employed person or that her business could sustain her financially. The visa officer maintains in her affidavit that she expressed the above concerns to the applicant and that she was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of the statute. Under the circumstances, even if I were to have come to a different conclusion than the visa officer, it would not be open to me to disturb her decision. In Chiu Chee To v. M.E.I. (May 23, 1996), A-172-93, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for discretionary decisions of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications is the same as that enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1">Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada et al., [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1, where Mr. Justice McIntyre stated at pages 7 to 8:
| . . . It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. . . . |
|
[7] Finally, the applicant argues that the visa officer had a negative opinion of her, as shown by paragraph 18 of the visa officer's affidavit. Upon perusing this point of her affidavit, I do not see that the applicant has made out that an "informed person, viewing this matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through"2 would conclude that the visa officer was biased. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I do not think there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias.
[8] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[9] This is no matter for certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
January 5, 1999
__________________
1 L. Waldman, Immigration Law & Practice (Toronto: Butterworths, 1998) at "13.341.
2[1978] 1 S.C.R. 369"> Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369.
Email this Content