| |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
[1] The visa officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence on the ground that he did not meet the criteria for his intended occupation of Accountant (CCDO 1171-114).
[2] The applicant challenges the fairness of the visa officer's decision-making process for two reasons: (a) she did not provide the applicant with the opportunity of responding to the information she obtained upon verification of one of his references, (Thorne v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 62 F.T.R. 124; and (b) she failed to assess his application under the occupation of Administrative Officer (CCDO 1179-182), Li v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d) 263 at 273.
[3] The applicant was employed by a company in the United States which operated three fast-food franchise outlets. One of the partners provided a letter of reference outlining the applicant's functions as bookkeeping, bank reconciliation, stock control and inventory, the payment of bills and the preparation of monthly financial statements. When she called to verify the reference, the visa officer was only able to speak with another partner. He indicated that the applicant was not working as an accountant but rather as a manager. This telephone exchange took place during the visa officer's interview with the applicant and in his presence. She reported the information she received to the applicant immediately. He had the opportunity to respond and did so. With these facts, the applicant cannot successfully rely on Thorne .
[4] The applicant's counsel wrote to the visa officer, one week after she issued her decision, requesting that his client be assessed as an Administrative Officer. Counsel's letter was sent before he learned of the visa officer's decision. The affidavit evidence is contradictory as to whether the applicant, during the interview, requested that he be assessed as an Administrative Officer. The counsel's letter makes no reference to any such request by the applicant during the interview. The visa officer was not questioned concerning this important factual issue during her cross-examination.
[5] The applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that any request was made by him or on his behalf that he be assessed as an Administrative Officer prior to the visa officer's decision. On the basis of Li and Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (T.D.) at 83, the visa officer had no duty to make an assessment under an alternate occupation category not designated by the applicant.
[6] This application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
Email this Content