Date: 20010817
Docket: IMM-3678-00
Neutral citation:2001 FCT 913
BETWEEN:
OLEG KOSTEV
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer which denied the applicant's application for permanent residence. The applicant says the visa officer denied him procedural fairness because:
1. She had material concerns that his experience was not that of a Mechanical Engineer (NOC 2132) and she did not disclose those concerns to him.
2. She assessed him as a Supervisor, Mechanical Trades (NOC 7216) and did not tell him he was being assessed under that category.
[2] As to the first point, it is well established that the onus is on the applicant to put before the visa officer all material necessary for a favourable decision to be made. There is no obligation on the visa officer to ask for clarification or for additional information or to inform an applicant on a running basis of her concerns. See for example Madan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 F.C.J. No. 1198.
[3] As to the second point, had the visa officer assessed the applicant only as a Supervisor, Mechanical Trades when he applied as an Engineer, I think she would have had the obligation to inform him. However, here, in addition to assessing him as an Engineer, she assessed him as a Supervisor, Mechanical Trades. She had no obligation to do so as he did not apply under that category and the fact that she did so without informing him does not constitute a breach of procedural fairness.
[4] The applicant says that the visa officer's reference in her affidavit that she assessed the applicant as an Engineer was only "window dressing". However, the CAIPs notes disclose that at the interview the applicant was asked and provided information as to his work experience. Following the list of his work experience the CAIPs notes state, "he has no engineering experience". From a review of the applicant's work experience as listed in the CAIPs notes, I cannot say that this conclusion was unreasonable. I am not persuaded that the engineering assessment was "window dressing".
[5] I do not find a breach of procedural fairness in this case. The judicial review will be dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
August 17, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-3678-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: OLEG KOSTEV
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
DATED: FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2001
APPEARANCES: Mr. Johnson
For the Applicant
Mr. Gold
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Rekai & Johnson
Barristers & Solicitors
21 Bedford Road
Toronto, Ontario
M5R 2J9
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010817
Docket: IMM-3678-00
BETWEEN:
OLEG KOSTEV
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Date: 20010817
Docket: IMM-3678-00
Toronto, Ontario, Friday the 17th day of August, 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rothstein
BETWEEN:
OLEG KOSTEV
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The judicial review is dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Email this Content