Zhoa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 1421

Date: 20121205

Docket: IMM-4927-12

Citation: 2012 FC 1421

Vancouver, British Columbia, December 5, 2012

PRESENT:    The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

BETWEEN:

           REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]               Maintaining that the duty of candour is of paramount essence to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]; and acknowledging that without such candour, the objectives as set out in Section 3 of the IRPA risk failure.

[2]               Understanding that the Canadian immigration authorities rely, first and foremost, on candour to ensure that their respective decisions reflect the health, family, security, social, economic and cultural fabric which Canada has set for itself through objectives as set out in legislative provisions of the IRPA, all of which are reflected in the Section 3 framework encompassing the Act.

[3]               Responding to a judicial review application of the Applicant, the Court denies the judicial review due to inherently apparent significant credibility concerns and a lack of evidence to support the Applicant’s eligibility for the position of Financial Manager, an occupation listed as National Occupational Classification (NOC) 0111.

[4]               This Court acknowledges the decision of Justice Marshall Rothstein in Lam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 152 FTR 316:

[4]        … The onus is on an applicant to file a clear application together with such supporting documentation as he or she considers advisable. The onus does not shift to the visa officer and there is no entitlement to a personal interview if the application is ambiguous or supporting material is not included.

[5]               Recognizing that the Applicant, herself, admits she made a “mistake”, it is this that gave rise to serious credibility concerns:

a.       No adequate inclusion of a chronological work history for the last ten years;

b.      Lack of credibility in respect of the accounting field as unrelated work had been submitted as being related.

[6]               When assessing procedural fairness, the visa officer has no duty to question subsequently when an application is ambiguous and appears, on the face of the record itself, to miss adequate supporting documents.

[7]               Having concluded, on the basis of the file, that the decision of the visa officer is reasonable as per Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190, this Court dismisses the judicial review application of the Applicant.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s application for judicial review be dismissed. No question of general importance for certification.

“Michel M.J. Shore”

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                         IMM-4927-12

STYLE OF CAUSE:                        YUE LI ZHAO v THE MINISTER

                                                            OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                  Vancouver, British Columbia

DATE OF HEARING:                    December 4, 2012

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                                  SHORE J.

DATED:                                            December 5, 2012

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: