Date: 20001013
Docket: IMM-114-99
BETWEEN:
XIAO WEI LIU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] Xiao Wei Liu, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, seeks judicial review of the November 9, 1998 decision of visa officer, Daniel Vaughan, wherein he refused her application for permanent residence in the Independent category.
[2] The applicant applied for consideration under the occupation of Executive Secretary, Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO) code 4111-111. In her application, she stated that she worked as an executive secretary at the Import and Export Corporation of Yun Zhou Coal Mining Bureau from July 1992 to November 1995 and at the Shanghai Branch Office of Yun Zhou Coal Mining Bureau from November 1994 to the date of the application. Letters of reference from these two employers as well as documents with respect to her education were included with the application. At the time of the interview, the applicant was working for Lear China as an executive secretary to the general manager.
[3] Prior to the commencement of the interview on March 2, 1998, the applicant was given a typing test and scored 31 wpm. At the interview, the visa officer examined the applicant's identity documents and noted that her passport, issued January 28, 1997, stated her occupation as "technician". As this appeared to be unusual given that she claimed to have worked as an executive secretary, he requested the applicant's Household Registration document, but she had not brought this document to the interview.
[4] Based on the documentary evidence submitted prior to the interview, and the applicant's answers to questions at the interview, the visa officer concluded the applicant met the training and entry requirements for an executive secretary under the CCDO.
[5] With regard to work experience, based on the information contained in her application and her oral answers, the visa officer was satisfied that her duties matched those of Executive Secretary under the relevant CCDO code. Despite some concerns regarding her typing test and the occupation title of "technician" on her passport, he assigned a preliminary score of 6 units of assessment for experience. The applicant was advised that this was subject to further verification.
[6] The applicant applied as an assisted relative based on her husband's grandmother residing in Canada. The visa officer was not satisfied that she had adequately established this relationship at the interview but did not pursue this issue as he thought the applicant would receive sufficient units of assessment and would not require the assisted relative bonus.
[7] The visa officer advised the applicant of his preliminary assessment of her at 71 points but stated this was contingent on verification of her education, occupational background and work experience. Specifically, he requested a notarized copy of her Household Registration document as additional proof of her claimed employment. He also requested a notarized copy of her college diploma. According to the visa officer's affidavit, he advised her that if there were inconsistencies between the information she had provided orally and this documentary proof, her application could be refused. At the close of the interview, he provided her with a letter requesting notarized copies of these documents.
[8] He received the further documentation on March 16, 1998. The new documents were not notarized. The Household Registration document stated the applicant's occupation as "government employee" with the "Railway Transport Bureau, Telecom Department". As this contradicted her earlier statement that she was working for Lear China as an executive secretary, the visa officer inquired into her previously held positions with the Yun Zhou Coal Mining Bureau in Zoucheng and the Shanghai Branch of Yun Zhou Coal Mining Bureau. The telephone number provided for the former was out of service and no current listing was available. Upon contacting the latter employer, he received conflicting information: in his first call, he was informed that the individual who had signed the applicant's reference letter did work at that company, but provided no clear confirmation that the applicant herself had worked there; in a second call, he was told that no one by the applicant's name had been employed there.
[9] On April 15, 1998, the visa officer wrote to the applicant advising her of his concerns and informing her of the above noted inconsistencies. The letter referred specifically to the information on her passport, the information on the copy of her Household Registration, the contradictory information gleaned from calls to her alleged former employers and her low typing score, which was said to compound the above doubts. It concluded, "The above facts cast significant doubt on your claimed work employment and experience as a secretary. I am providing you with the opportunity to respond to these doubts. You may reply in writing, and may provide any additional documents or proof of work experience that you believe may disabuse me of my concerns." 1
[10] The applicant submitted a number of documents in response. She provided a handwritten letter from the Tie Xi Police Subsection Census Section, the public security organization responsible for Household Registers, stating that her occupation had been mistakenly listed as that of her parents, and that her "working unit should be changed to Yun Zhou Mine Group Import and Export Corporation." 2 She explained in writing that she had reported on her former employer, the General Manager, when he committed an illegal act, and that his failure to confirm her employment there was based on a grudge. A letter from Liu Fu Geng, of the Yun Zhou Mining Group Commission for Inspecting and Discipline, confirmed that the applicant had worked there but had been allowed to resign because she had reported her "leader's" illegal act. She also provided copies of her two labour contracts with the Yun Zhou Mining Group. With regard to the passport describing her as "technician", she explained that "since [she] had attended a technical university, under the management of the China Coal Mining Ministry, most graduates would become technicians in the coal mining industry." 3 Her counsel also submitted, in response to the April 15, 1998 letter, that typing was only one of the duties required of an executive secretary, and that she had been nervous and unfamiliar with the equipment used when she was tested. She also submitted a notarial certificate detailing her employment history.
[11] In his affidavit, the visa officer attested that this further documentation did not alleviate his doubts. He did not accept the explanation for the inconsistencies in the response from Yhanzou Coal Mining Bureau, given that this employer, said to have held a grudge, had apparently provided a letter of reference for the applicant in February 1997. Regarding the letter, in his words, "purporting to be from the Ti Xi Police subsection" concerning the Household Registration document, he noted that the letter was handwritten, and the errors had not been corrected in the actual document. He also noted the applicant's passport had not been corrected, and reiterated his concerns over fraudulent documentation in the People's Republic of China, particularly regarding work experience. In this regard, he noted the letter purporting to be from the Yun Zhou Mining Group Commission for Inspecting and Discipline lacked an official "chop" "signifying the authority of the person signing the letter" usually found in such documents. He also noted that all other documents submitted were "also either of recent issue, and thus prepared for the purpose of responding to [his] letter of concerns, or highly unusual, such as copies of [the applicant's] employment contracts with the Yun Zhou Mining Bureau." 4 He noted that such fixed term employment contracts between employees and state enterprises are "virtually unknown in China." He also wondered why such verification was presented at only this late stage in the application process.
[12] The visa officer decided this newly submitted information was not sufficient to overcome his concerns. He concluded the applicant's claimed work experience was not credible and awarded her "0" points for the experience factor.
[13] The applicant submits the visa officer breached the duty of fairness by failing to advise the applicant that he would not accept any evidence with respect to her employment experience except an amended Household Registration or perhaps a corrected passport.
[14] A review of the CAIPS notes and the visa officer's affidavit confirm that he took into account factors in addition to the failure to provide the corrected documents in question in reaching his decision.
[15] While he refers to the two documents as "basic documents that can prove employment in PRC", he also recorded his skepticism as to the veracity of the applicant's explanation regarding her purported former employer's grudge against her, noting that the personnel office of this company, presumably neutral regarding any grudge, did not confirm her employment there. He goes on to note that the telephone number given for her former employer was in fact that of the Coal Mining Research Bureau, her husband's employer.
[16] Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the refusal rested only on the two documents in question and that these were the only two documents he would accept to confirm the work experience. There were clearly other factors which contributed to the visa officer's unwillingness to accept as fact the applicant's claimed work experience. Further, the visa officer's concerns were identified to the applicant both at the interview and in writing to the applicant's counsel and she was given ample opportunity to address the concerns. Under these circumstances, there was no breach of the duty of fairness.
[17] As a visa officer is precluded from issuing a visa to an immigrant who has not been awarded any units of assessment for the factor of experience, a consideration of the second ground for judicial review argued by the applicant is not required.
[18] For these reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[19] Neither party submitted a question for certification.
OTTAWA
__________________
1 Certified Record, p.21.
2 Ibid, p.25.
3 Applicant's Affidavit, para. 8.
4 Affidavit of Daniel A. Vaughan, para. 22.
Email this Content