Daredia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 237

Date: 20020304

Docket: IMM-3646-00

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 237

BETWEEN:

                                                             NOORAMIN DAREDIA

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY A.C.J.

[1]                 In his application for permanent residence under the independent category for the intended occupation of Jeweller (NOC 7344) and Jeweller Designer (NOC 5243), the applicant submitted three substantially identical letters of reference from former employers. Each letter described his work experience in these terms: "His responsibilities included jewelry, repairs and custom-made jewelry ...".

[2]                 During her interview with the applicant, the visa officer questioned him concerning the authenticity of the identically worded letters over the signatures of apparently different persons. The visa officer was not satisfied with the applicant's responses. Prior to the end of their meeting, the visa officer advised the applicant that the reference letters were not credible and that he failed to demonstrate his work experience as a jeweller.

[3]                 In this application for judicial review, the applicant argues that the visa officer breached her duty to act fairly in not affording him the opportunity of addressing her concerns with respect to the letters of reference and his work experience.

[4]                 It is common ground that the visa officer has the duty to act fairly in assessing the application for permanent residence. This duty of fairness must be assessed in the factual, administrative and legal contexts of the decision. The content of the visa officer's duty has been said to be at the lower end of the spectrum: Chiau v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 297 (C.A.), at paragraphs 35 and 41.

[5]                 The extensive case law relied upon by the applicant is of little assistance on the facts of this case.    The applicant was alerted of the visa officer's apprehensions concerning his work experience. His responses did not satisfy the visa officer. No information was relied upon by the visa officer in reaching her negative conclusion which was not made known to the applicant.

[6]                 In my view, the applicant's submissions do not take into account his statutory burden of proof in establishing his admissibility into Canada as a permanent resident. It is the responsibility of the applicant to produce all relevant information which may assist his application: Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (T.D.), at 83.

[7]                 The record discloses no reliable material upon which the visa officer could have reached a different conclusion. The applicant's case was limited to his application form, his letters of reference and his responses during the interview. Two letters written on his behalf, one at the time of the filing of his application and the other on the day immediately following the interview, merely described the applicant's work experience by substantially repeating, sometimes literally, the main duties as set out in the National Occupational Classification for his intended occupation.

[8]                 There is nothing in the record which justifies the invitation to the visa officer, in the correspondence forwarded to her after the interview, "... to verify [the applicant's] education and work-related documents in order to confirm that [he] is indeed a highly qualified Jeweller-Jewellery Designer." The information provided by the applicant concerning his work experience, even if the statements made in the three letters of reference are taken at their face value, falls far short of the main duties in the National Occupational Classification for his intended occupations.

[9]                 In these circumstances, it is not necessary to consider further the applicant's submissions concerning personal suitability and the possibility of bonus points for a relative in Canada.

[10]            For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither parties suggested the certification of a serious question.

                                                                                                                                                    "Allan Lutfy"                     

                                                                                                                                                            A.C.J.

Ottawa, Ontario

March 4, 2002