Date: 20110216
Docket: IMM-3226-10
Citation: 2011 FC 184
Toronto, Ontario, February 16,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
|
|
CESAR ENRIQUE CARRILLO SEIJO
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
Cesar
Enrique Carrillo Seijo applied for permanent residence in Canada as a Federal Skilled
Worker. The visa officer assessing the application had concerns that were not
allayed by documents that he provided. The application was refused after Mr.
Seijo and his spouse failed to attend an interview with the officer. Mr. Seijo says
that he should have been interviewed by telephone, and that the failure of the officer
to accommodate him in this regard amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, I am not persuaded that Mr. Seijo was denied
procedural fairness in this matter. Consequently, the application for judicial
review will be dismissed.
Background
[3]
Mr.
Seijo and his family are originally from Venezuela. They moved to the United States in 2000, and an asylum
claim in that country was unsuccessful. Mr. Seijo applied for permanent
residence in Canada under the Federal
Skilled Worker program in February of 2009. The application was filed in the United States, but before the visa
application could be assessed, the family moved to Canada and claimed refugee
protection in this country.
[4]
The
officer had a number of concerns with respect to the application. As a
consequence, the visa officer decided that a personal interview with Mr. Seijo
and his spouse was necessary. A letter was sent to Mr. Seijo setting a date for
the interview, which was to be held in Detroit.
[5]
The
visa officer also provided Mr. Seijo with a list identifying the additional
documents that the officer needed to assess the application. The officer was
very specific as to the type of US tax information she required, going so far as
to provide Mr. Seijo with a sample IRS form to show precisely what was
required.
[6]
Mr.
Seijo provided the officer with a number of documents, but did not provide the
requested American tax information. Nor did he provide the officer with an
explanation for his failure to comply with the officer’s request.
[7]
Because
they were in this country as refugee claimants, Mr. Seijo and his spouse were
unable to leave Canada in order to attend the interview with the visa officer
in Detroit. Mr. Seijo asked to
have the interview carried out by teleconference. The officer refused this
request, advising that a decision would be made on the basis of the documentary
record if the family did not attend the scheduled interview.
[8]
Mr.
Seijo and his wife did not attend the interview, and the visa officer
subsequently refused the application for permanent residency. The officer was
not satisfied that Mr. Seijo was not inadmissible or that he met the
requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The officer
was also not satisfied that Mr. Seijo had at least one year of continuous
full-time or equivalent paid work experience in a qualifying occupation.
Analysis
[9]
Mr.
Seijo claims to have been denied procedural fairness in this matter. The task
for this Court on judicial review is to determine whether the process followed
by the decision-maker satisfied the level of fairness required in all of the
circumstances: see Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009
SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339, at para. 43.
[10]
I am
satisfied that the requirements of procedural fairness were met here.
[11]
The
onus is on an applicant to provide adequate and sufficient evidence to support
his application: Sharma v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 786, [2009] F.C.J. No. 910, at para. 8.
Mr. Seijo failed to do so
in this case, despite having been informed by the visa officer as to precisely
what additional documentation was required. Moreover, no explanation was
provided, either at the time of the application for permanent residency or in
the course of this application for judicial review, for his failure to comply
with the officer’s request.
[12]
Mr.
Seijo acknowledges
that a visa officer may reasonably insist upon a face-to-face interview where,
for example, a visa application raises issues of credibility. However, he
submits that this was not the case here, as the officer’s only concern was with
the vagueness of a job description. In these circumstances, Mr. Seijo says that the
officer had a duty to facilitate the application by conducting a telephone
interview.
[13]
I
do not agree with Mr.
Seijo’s
characterization of the nature of the visa officer’s concerns. It is evident from the
CAIPS notes that the officer had a number of concerns with respect to the
application, some of which can fairly be described as credibility concerns.
Indeed, it is clear that the documentation that Mr. Seijo provided raised
serious questions as to the veracity of the information contained in the
original application.
[14]
For
example, the CAIPS notes refer to the fact that Mr. Seijo had identified his
occupation between 2000 and 2006 as a “Supervisor” in his application for
permanent residence. The officer observed that Mr. Seijo’s 2001 tax return
listed his occupation as “None”, his 2002 tax return listed his occupation as
“Driver-Delivery”, his 2003 and 2004 tax returns listed his occupation as
“Incorporated”, and his 2005 and 2006 tax returns listed his occupation as
“Home Inspector”.
[15]
The
officer also had concerns with respect to Mr. Seijo’s admissibility, his
education, the funds available to him for settlement in Canada and whether he had a
qualifying relative in Canada.
[16]
In
light of these concerns, it was entirely within the officer’s discretion to
insist upon a face-to-face interview. Mr. Seijo’s failure to provide the
requested information or to attend at the interview meant that he failed to adduce adequate and
sufficient evidence to support his application.
Conclusion
[17]
For
these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certification
[18]
Neither
party has suggested a question for certification, and none arises here.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES
that:
1. This
application for judicial review is dismissed; and
2. No serious
question of general importance is certified.
“Anne Mactavish”
Email this Content