Mahase v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-2239-96

     IMM-2239-96

BETWEEN:

     NARASE MAHASE

     Applicant

     - AND -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered orally from the Bench

     on January 3, 1997, as edited)

McKEOWN J.

     The applicant, a citizen of Trinidad, seeks judicial review of a decision dated May 24, 1996 of a visa officer in Mexico City wherein the applicant was denied permanent residence in Canada. The issue is whether the respondent complied with the duty of fairness.

     The applicant sought to be qualified under two different categories of cook. He supplied references to show that he worked in Canada and also in Trinidad as a cook. The applicant submits that he was not offered an opportunity to address the concerns of the visa officer in either case, because he was unaware that the visa officer took the position that the Good Times Restaurant did not exist; and, in the case of the Canadian restaurant, the visa officer did not believe that he worked as a cook.

     He submits, accordingly, that the visa officer did not comply with the duty of fairness as set out in Muliadi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1986] 2 F.C. 205 (C.A.), and as followed in Lau v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (1996), 33 Imm. L.R. (2d) 302 (F.C.T.D.), Paik v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, September 13, 1996, Court File IMM-611-95, (F.C.T.D.), and Tam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), September 16, 1996, Court File IMM-3276-95 (F.C.T.D.). In my view, these cases are not applicable in these circumstances.

     The applicant originally submitted two letters of reference dated April 1994 in respect of two of the restaurants. The interview was scheduled for March 13, 1996. The applicant's counsel submitted further information on February 20, 1996 and then a week before the interview, a letter dated March 4, 1996 and a 1995-1996 restaurant licence for the Good Times Restaurant. At the interview, the applicant submitted that the Ships Tavern Restaurant and Pub was no longer in business.

     Following the interview, the applicant's counsel submitted a further letter with respect to the Ships Tavern Restaurant and Pub and asked that the present employer, Good Times Restaurant, be contacted. On March 21, 1996, the applicant submitted further information on the Ships Tavern Restaurant and Pub.

     On April 18, 1996, an assistant in the respondent's Mexico City office informed the applicant's counsel that they:

     The respondent's office then received a telex from Port of Spain saying there is:

     The visa officer also had one of her employees contact Egan Restaurants Limited in Toronto, who confirmed that the applicant was a kitchen helper and not a cook. The visa officer then turned down the application by letter dated May 24, 1996. In my view, on these facts, there was adequate opportunity afforded the applicant to address the concerns of the visa officer. The respondent complied with the duty of fairness. The onus is on the applicant to prove his case.

     The application for judicial review is dismissed.

                         ____________________________

                                 Judge

OTTAWA (ONTARIO)

January 20, 1997