Date: 19980818
Docket: IMM-4229-97
BETWEEN:
ISHTIAQ AHMAD RANA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Monday, August 17, 1998)
HUGESSEN, J.:
[1] This is an application to review and set aside a decision of a Visa Officer. It raises a single very narrow point.
[2] The applicant indicated in his application that his occupation was that of a "Financial Aids Officer". The Visa Officer, without calling on the applicant to submit any further documentation or any details as to his alleged work experience in that occupation, dismissed his application. I do not find it necessary to decide, in this case, whether in such circumstances the duty of fairness required the Visa Officer to give the applicant an opportunity to file supporting documents. I note, however, that the duty of persuading the Visa Officer of the well founded character of an application falls clearly upon the applicant. Section 8 of the Immigration Act makes that abundantly clear.
[3] I am also aware, however, that there is frequently a practice of filing applications and filing the supporting documentation at some later date. I do not find it necessary to decide whether the Visa Officer breached a duty of fairness by deciding this case simply on the basis of the application with no supporting documents. My reason for that is simple. As I indicated, the occupation indicated by the applicant in his application is that of a Financial Aids Officer. That is a very special type of occupation: in accordance with the CCDO the description of the occupation is that of:
| |
a person who co-ordinates programs of scholarships, grants, loans and student employment in college or university. |
|
Manifestly, that is a job which is done by someone who is employed by or in very close association with a College or University.
[4] In the application form filed by this applicant he asserts that he has acted as a Financial Aids Officer and indicates two employers for whom he has so acted. The first is said to be "Service Shoes Industries"; the second, "Imperial Chemical Industry". Manifestly, there is a contradiction on the face of the applicant's application and the Visa Officer did not err in dismissing the application on its face. No document that could have been submitted by the applicant could have persuaded the Visa Officer that the applicant had work as a Financial Aids Officer for those two employers.
[5] Consequently, the application will be dismissed. Before entering the order, I would invite counsel to make any submissions with respect to the certification of a question.
"James K. Hugessen"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
August 18, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-4229-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ISHTIAQ AHMAD RANA |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, AUGUST 17, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HUGESSEN, J.
DATED: TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Nima Hejazi
For the Applicant
Ms. Lori Hendricks
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Angie Codina |
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980818
Docket: IMM-4229-97
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
Email this Content