Date: 20000414
Docket: IMM-2646-99
Between:
OLGA TKACHENKO,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered on April 26, 1999 by J. Marlene Massey, a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Ukraine (Kiev) ("the visa officer"), refusing the applicant's application for a visitor visa.
[2] The applicant, a marketing representative for the state corporation Sodruzhestvo, wished to come to Canada to establish a commercial relationship between the Kalytyansky firm, a hog slaughterhouse in Ukraine, and a Canadian company. It appears from the record that this was the applicant's fifth application for a visa to come to Canada. The visa officer rejected this last application, as she was not convinced that the applicant was "... indeed a bona fide visitor" (respondent's record, p. 29).
[3] Suffice it to recall that by the terms of the Immigration Act, a visitor must apply for and obtain a visa before appearing at a port of entry (ss. 9(1)), and must satisfy a visa officer that he or she is not an immigrant (ss. 9(1.2)), after answering truthfully the questions put by the visa officer and producing the documentation that the visa officer requires (ss. 9(3)).
[4] In the case at bar, the visa officer found that the reasons stated by the applicant for coming to Canada were not credible. The officer was not satisfied with the explanations that the applicant provided regarding the relationship between her employer (Sodruzhestvo) and the Kalytyansky firm, which she claimed to represent. The officer also took into account the poor quality of the applicant's English, and the fact that a representative of the Ukrainian Embassy would in any case have to accompany anyone coming from the Ukraine for the purpose of establishing a commercial relationship. Finally, and above all, the visa officer stated that she was not satisfied that the applicant possessed the knowledge and expertise required to carry out the mission that the letters of invitation entailed.
[5] It is this last reason for the visa officer's decision that counsel for the applicant is primarily attacking. Counsel argues that the visa officer erred in requiring that the applicant have qualifications superior to those required by her mission, and that the officer improperly assessed the evidence that had been submitted to her.
[6] It is an established principle that this Court is not called upon to judge the appropriateness of a visa officer's decision,1 nor to render a decision in the officer's place.2 The Court must determine whether the decision contains some error that would warrant intervention by the Court.
[7] As I mentioned at the conclusion of the hearing, I think that in the case at bar, the applicant has not shown that the decision under attack contained any error that would warrant intervention by this Court. The visa officer had the right to question the applicant about her professional competence, about her knowledge of the subject matter with which her visit would be concerned, and about the role she was supposed to play in the negotiations. Having examined, in particular, the documentary evidence filed on the record3 and the CAIPS notes (pp. 87 to 92 of the respondent's record), I find that in the case at bar, it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to reject the application.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
(PIERRE DENAULT)
__________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
April 14, 2000
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
Date: 20000414
Docket: IMM-2646-99
Ottawa, Ontario, this 14th day of April 2000
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DENAULT
Between:
OLGA TKACHENKO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
(PIERRE DENAULT)
Judge
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL.B.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND OF SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE No.: IMM-2646-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: OLGA TKACHENKO v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 12, 2000
REASONS FOR THE ORDER OF DENAULT J.
DATE: APRIL 14, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Nicole Goulet FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Lysanne K. Lafond FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Nicole Goulet FOR APPLICANT
Hull, Quebec
Mr. Moris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________
1 Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2">[1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 (p.7).
2 Alleti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1998), 147 F.T.R. 310 (p. 316).
3 Letter from Crabtree & Associates Inc. (respondent's record, p. 16); letter from the Ukrainian Embassy in Canada (p. 21); letter from F. Ménard Inc. (p. 22); letter from the "Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, State Enterprise" Sodruzhestvo (p. 24).
Email this Content