Date: 20000915
Docket: IMM-1646-00
BETWEEN:
AMRISH GOYAL
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec
on Friday, September 15, 2000)
LINDEN J.
| [1] The applicant for judicial review, Amrish Goyal, has been trying to immigrate from India to Canada since 1993, when his parents applied to enter as a family. He was left behind in India when his parents' application was accepted, because he had reached the age when he had to apply independently, which he proceeded to do. |
| [2] After a considerable delay and some problems about where the interview would take place, his application was refused by the Designated Visa Officer on February 22, 2000. He received only 64 units of the 65 needed to succeed. |
| [3] In a close case such as this the Court must take a particularly hard look at the proceedings. It is clear that Visa Officers have a wide discretion, one that should be rarely interfered with. Considerable deference must be shown and Courts should only intervene when there is a clear error of law, a denial of natural justice, or where extraneous matters are considered or where significant evidence is ignored. (See Gill v. Canada (M.C.I.), (1996 ) 34 Imm. L.R. (2d) 127). |
| [4] Although arguments were addressed to the absence of sufficient reasons and to the unreasonable delay in arriving at a decision, which took almost one year even after repeated inquiries were made by counsel, I need not deal with these issues here in the light of my conclusions on the treatment of the matter of personal suitability, where only 3 points out of 10 were awarded. |
| [5] In my view, this decision was flawed in that the Visa Officer ignored two important pieces of evidence which might well have affected the number of points awarded under his head, which is mainly aimed at whether an applicant is likely to become economically and socially adjusted in Canada. |
| [6] There were two letters in the Record from potential employers in Canada offering the Applicant a job, albeit informally. These letters were from two different auto service providers in Scarborough, Ontario, where the applicant's parents lived. They were apparently from entrepreneurs of the same ethnic background. These two letters, though very significant, were ignored by the Visa Officer, who did not mention them, although he specifically disparaged another letter from the applicant's employer in India. |
| [7] Another letter of extreme importance dealing with the amount of money the applicant had was also ignored. There were two letters in the file - one indicating that he had a bank account in Canada containing $18,000.00 written on March 25, 1996, and another that he had $19,099.00 written on March 8, 1999. The Visa Officer commented in the notes that the first amount was withdrawable on the signature of the father, but did not seem to notice that the second amount was in both the name of the father and the applicant, indicating perhaps joint ownership. He did not refer to the second important letter at all. |
| [8] Based on the unacceptable way that this vital evidence was dealt with, and not unmindful of the slowness of the decision-making process in this case, justice can only be served by returning this matter to another Visa Officer to reconsider the award of units for personal suitability. |
| [9] The application will therefore, be allowed and the matter resubmitted to a different Visa Officer to consider again the element of personal suitability. |
Ottawa, Ontario "A.M. Linden"
September 15, 2000 Judge
Email this Content