Date: 20080215
Docket: IMM-1233-07
Citation: 2008 FC 200
Ottawa, Ontario, February 15,
2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
KHADIZATUN NABIN
and
ROBAIT-E-JASMIN
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
Applicant sponsored her sister who was denied a visa on the basis that she was
not a member of the family class. This is the judicial review of that Visa Officer’s
decision.
II. BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant Nabin was advised in December 2005 that she qualified as a sponsor
for the permanent residence of her mother and her sister (Robait-E-Jasmin). The
file was forwarded to the Visa Office in Singapore. When the
mother submitted her application for permanent residence, Jasmin was 25 years
old.
[3]
In
order to expedite the process, the Applicant waived any request for an
interview.
[4]
By
letter dated March 15, 2007, the Visa Officer informed the mother that Jasmin
did not meet the family class requirement because she was not a “dependent
child”, as defined in s. 2 of the Regulations. The Visa Officer noted
that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim that Jasmin had been
continuously enrolled in and attending an accredited post-secondary institution
on a full-time basis since 2002. The Visa Officer observed that documentary
evidence demonstrated that Jasmin may have been enrolled up to 2005 but that
did not demonstrate attendance.
[5]
Most
importantly, the Visa Officer referred to her letter of February 7, 2007 in
which she raised concerns about the sufficiency and accuracy of the documents
submitted and accorded the mother an opportunity to submit additional
documents. No new documents were submitted.
III. ANALYSIS
[6]
The
issue in this judicial review is whether the Applicant (which in reality
includes the mother and Jasmin) was accorded fairness in the manner with which
the visa application was dealt.
[7]
The
case law in this Court is consistent; the burden of establishing entitlement to
a visa rests on an applicant. This burden includes the responsibility to
produce all relevant information which may assist the application. There is no
general requirement that visa officers engage in a form of dialogue as to the
completeness or adequacy of materials filed.
[8]
The
exception to the absence of any obligation on a visa officer to give notice of
concerns about filed materials is where there are concerns about the
credibility, accuracy or genuineness of the information submitted or extrinsic
evidence arises with respect to that information (see Olorunshola v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 1056, paras. 30-37).
[9]
In
the present case, the Visa Officer’s concern was with respect to the adequacy
or completeness of the information and what conclusions should be drawn. This
is not a circumstance under which the Visa Officer was legally required to give
notice of his/her concerns.
[10]
Moreover,
the Visa Officer did give the Applicant notice of concern, albeit in a general
manner. The Applicant did not even take the rudimentary step of inquiring as to
the concerns. Therefore, I can find no unfairness on the part of the Visa
Officer.
IV. CONCLUSION
[11]
Therefore,
this judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review is dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1233-07
STYLE OF CAUSE: KHADIZATUN
NABIN and ROBAIT-E-JASMIN
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF
HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING: January
23, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT: Phelan J.
DATED: February
15, 2008
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Rashid
Khandaker
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
Ms. Kareena R.
Wilding
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
MR. RASHID
KHANDAKER
Barrister
& Solicitor
Toronto,
Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
MR. JOHN H.
SIMS, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content