"On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court is of the view that the Officer's reasons are adequate, as they explicitly make reference to the issue of "credibility and fabrication for immigration purposes"."
Applicants are cautioned not to resor to tactics that can be construed as attempting to mislead the administration fo the Act.
Obeta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Between Michael Okwu Obeta, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
2012 FC 1542
Docket IMM-4390-12
?Federal Court
Montr?al, Quebec
Boivin J.
Heard: December 5, 2012.
Judgment: December 21, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
1 ????BOIVIN J.:-- This is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] in which the applicant seeks to quash the decision of a Visa Officer (the Officer) dated March 14, 2012, denying his application for a permanent resident visa under the federal skilled worker class on the basis that he failed to adduce adequate evidence of his work experience. For the following reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
2 ????Mr. Michael Okwu Obeta (the applicant) is a citizen of Nigeria. He is married and has two (2) minor children. The applicant applied for a permanent resident visa under the Federal Skilled Worker class. He has eighteen (18) years of formal education and holds a Bachelor's of Science in Accountancy and a Project Management Professional certificate. The applicant's spouse has seventeen (17) years of formal education and also holds a Bachelor's of Science (Tribunal Record, pp 25-26, 29, 34 and 62). The applicant claims to have over four (4) years of experience under the National Occupational Classification (NOC) code 0711 as a Construction Project Manager, and over two (2) years of work experience under the NOC code 0111 as a Financial Control Manager (Tribunal Record, p 39).
3 ????The applicant's application was received on January 14, 2010 and forwarded to the Visa Office in Accra, Ghana, after an initial assessment on March 8, 2010 (Tribunal Record, pp 3-4). The applicant was asked at that time to submit his full application within one hundred and twenty (120) days and to send it to Accra (Tribunal Record, p 4). Further documents were requested from the applicant on November 28, 2011. The applicant submitted several documents in support of his application, including:
letters of employment from Cirico Technical Services Limited (Cirico): a first letter dated March 30, 2010 (Tribunal Record, p 72), and a second letter submitted after the November 28, 2011 request, dated December 2, 2011 (Tribunal Record, p 85);?
letter of employment from Indepco Ltd (Indepco), dated March 30, 2010 (Tribunal Record, p 73);?
letter of employment from the Nigeria Union of Local Government Employees (Nulge), dated April 26, 2010, which does not refer to a listed NOC code for Federal Skilled Workers (Tribunal Record, p 74)?
employment offer from Indepco, dated August 6, 2001 (Tribunal Record, pp 79-81), signed August 9, 2004?
employment offer from Cirico, dated February 6, 2004 (Tribunal Record, pp 75-78), signed on February 10, 2004.?
4 ????The letters from Cirico attested to the applicant's position as a Construction Project Manager since February 2004 and listed ten (10) main duties (corresponding to NOC code 0711). The letter from Indepco indicated that the applicant had worked for this company from August 2001 until January 2004 as a Financial Control Manager and listed nine (9) main duties (corresponding to NOC code 0111).
5 ????The applicant's application was reviewed and denied by the Officer on March 14, 2012 (Tribunal Record, p 7-10).
6 ????The Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes indicate that the applicant had, at a preliminary stage, sufficient points to meet the requirements of the Act, having accumulated a total of sixty-nine (69) points while the required amount is sixty-seven (67). Of the applicant's sixty-nine (69) points, twenty-one (21) were provisionally awarded for work experience based on the applicant's submissions (Tribunal Record, p 7). However, upon review by the Officer, the documents supporting the applicant's work experience were rejected and his application was therefore deemed ineligible for processing.
7 ????The Officer found the letter submitted by the applicant from Cirico describing his duties as a Construction Project Manager since February 2004 was not credible and was likely fabricated for immigration purposes (Tribunal Record, pp 7 and 72). The letter listed tasks which appeared to be copied directly from the NOC code 0711 and slightly modified. The company's letterhead and the business card attached to the letter were printed using an ink-jet printer. Furthermore, the Officer found it improbable that the applicant would be hired as a Construction Project Manager when he had no previous experience or training in the construction industry.
8 ????The Officer also gave little weight to a letter submitted by the applicant from Indepco Ltd. to corroborate his experience under the NOC code 0111 as a Financial Control Manager, also finding that it was likely fabricated for immigration purposes (Tribunal Record, pp 8 and 73). The Officer noted that the letter was printed on the same type of paper, using the same low-quality ink-jet printer, and otherwise looked very similar to the Cirico reference letter. The Officer noted that the duties listed on this letter also appear to be copied from the wording of the NOC code 0111.
9 ????Given the lack of satisfactory evidence concerning the applicant's work experience under the NOC code 0711 and NOC code 0111, the application was deemed ineligible for processing and was refused. The letter sent to the applicant, dated March 14, 2012, informed the applicant that he had "not provided sufficient evidence that [he] performed the actions described in the lead statement for those occupations" (Tribunal Record, p 9). The applicant requested reconsideration of the refusal decision on March 23, 2012. Attached to this request was a more detailed letter of employment from Cirico (Applicant's Record, Applicant's Affidavit, Exhibits H and I, pp 37-43). The applicant having received no response to his request for reconsideration, a reminder was sent via email by his counsel on April 3, 2012, which has also allegedly remained unanswered (Applicant's Record, Applicant's Affidavit, Exhibit J, p 46). The applicant therefore filed this application for judicial review.
10 ????After considering both parties' proposed issues for this application for judicial review, the Court is of the view that the issues are as follows:
Did the Officer breach the duty of procedural fairness by not giving the applicant the opportunity to address his doubts about the evidence being falsified??
Did the Officer err in deciding that the applicant's permanent residence application was ineligible for processing??
11 ????The relevant provisions of the Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [the Regulations], setting out the legislative framework for permanent residence applicants under the Federal Skilled Workers class, are set out in annex to this judgment. The Regulations require a minimum of one (1) year experience in a listed NOC code in the ten (10) year period preceding the application.
12 ????Furthermore, section 87.3 of the Act provides for the issuance of Ministerial Instructions by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The Ministerial Instructions, which were applicable to Federal Skilled Workers when the applicant applied for permanent residence, are entitled "MI1" (Ministerial Instructions, (2008) C Gaz I, 3043). They were applicable to applications received between February 27, 2008 and June 26, 2010. According to the MI1, applicants had to meet the requirements set forth under the instructions before being eligible for processing. Specifically, applicants had to have secured an Arranged Employment Offer (AEO) or have at least one (1) year of continuous full-time paid work experience over the last ten (10) years in one of the specified occupations set out by the NOC and listed in the Ministerial Instructions. Having no AEO, the applicant in the present case had to demonstrate that he had at least one (1) year of continuous full-time paid work experience in a listed NOC code during the ten (10) preceding years for his application to be eligible for processing.
13 ????Both parties submit that the issue is one of procedural fairness. When examining an issue of procedural fairness, the task for the Court is to determine whether the process followed by the decision-maker satisfied the level of fairness required in all of the circumstances (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 43, [2009] 1 SCR 339).
14 ????The issue of whether or not the Officer should have brought his concerns to the attention of the applicant and offered him an opportunity to address them is a question of procedural fairness, and is reviewable on a standard of correctness. However, the Officer's concerns themselves, namely his assessment of the evidence and subsequent conclusion that the application was ineligible for processing, are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Kamchibekov v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1411 at para 12, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1782 (QL) [Kamchibekov]). Deference being owed to the Officer in his assessment of the evidence, the Court will only interfere with the Officer's conclusions if they do not fall "within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law" ((Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47, [2008] 1 SCR 190 [Dunsmuir]).
15 ????From the outset, the Court recalls that visa applicants are owed a degree of procedural fairness which falls at the low end of the spectrum (Dash v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1255 at para 27, [2010] F.C.J. No. 1565 (QL) [Dash]), there being no substantive rights at issue as an applicant has no right to enter Canada (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1298 at para 20, 302 FTR 127). The decision on the application is neither judicial nor quasi-judicial in nature.
16 ????In the present circumstances, the main issue raised by the applicant concerns allegations of breach of the duty of procedural fairness: i.e., that the Officer erred by not informing the applicant of his concerns with the authenticity of the letters provided in support of this application.
17 ????More particularly, the applicant submits that the Officer should have provided him with a meaningful opportunity to respond to his concerns, and by failing to do so, the Officer committed a breach of procedural fairness (Li v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1284, 337 FTR 100; Rahim v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1252 at para 12, 152 ACWS (3d) 501). In this regard, the applicant relies on Torres v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 818 at para 38, 2 Imm LR (4th) 57 [Torres], to argue that "where credibility, accuracy or the genuine nature of information is in question, a duty also exists to give an opportunity to an applicant to disabuse an officer of any concerns that may arise" (also relying on Hassani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1283, [2007] 3 FCR 501 [Hassani]). The applicant submits that his application was complete and that the issue is accordingly not one of sufficiency, but rather of authenticity, of the documents provided in support of his application. In the applicant's view, it follows that the Officer owed him a duty of fairness.
18 ????The respondent disagrees and argues that the documents presented to the Officer contained numerous defects and lacked credibility. In such circumstances, maintains the respondent, no duty of fairness arises.
19 ????The applicant in this case agrees that an Officer is under no obligation to allow a given applicant to make further submissions if the concern is one that arises from the legislation or regulation. However, the applicant submits that his application was complete as it included the information required. As such, the applicant contends that he complied with the legislation and regulation and provided sufficient information. As indicated above, the applicant alleges that this case is not one that raises an issue of sufficiency of information - where no duty is owed by the Officer - but of authenticity of information. On the basis of this distinction, the applicant relies strongly on paragraph 24 in Hassani, and asserts that the Officer had a duty to provide him with an opportunity to address his concerns regarding the authenticity of the documents provided in support of his application. Justice Mosley in Hassani, above, at paragraph 24, observed the following:
??????? [24] Having reviewed the factual context of the cases cited above, it is clear that where a concern arises directly from the requirements of the legislation or related regulations, a visa officer will not be under a duty to provide an opportunity for the applicant to address his or her concerns. Where however the issue is not one that arises in this context, such a duty may arise. This is often the case where the credibility, accuracy or genuine nature of information submitted by the applicant in support of their application is the basis of the visa officer's concern, as was the case in Rukmangathan, and in John and Cornea cited by the Court in Rukmangathan, above.?
20 ????For the reasons that follow, the Court cannot agree with the applicant's position and interpretation of Hassani.
21 ????Firstly, the use of the word may at paragraph 24 in Hassani is an indication that Justice Mosley did not frame the duty of the Officer in absolute terms, as the applicant seems to suggest. In other words, Justice Mosley did not rule that there is necessarily a duty to provide an opportunity for the applicant to address his or her concerns when they arise outside the context of requirements pursuant to the legislation or related regulations.
22 ????Likewise, the use of the word often is another indication that such a duty is not necessarily triggered even where the credibility, accuracy or genuine nature of information submitted by the applicant is at issue. Depending on the circumstances, this duty may simply not arise. Here, the Officer referred to the fact that the reference letters from past employers were most probably fabricated for immigration purposes.
23 ????The Court observes, for instance, that the Officer noticed that the letters at pages 72, 73 and 74 of the Tribunal Record have the same font. He also noticed that the business cards make reference to a @yahoo.com and a @gmail.com email addresses, but not to a corporate email. Two (2) letters from two (2) different employers are signed on the same day, using the same type of paper with both letterheads printed in poor quality ink-jet and are otherwise quite alike (Tribunal Record, pp 72 and 73). The Officer further noticed that the duties enumerated in the letter from Cirico are nearly copied from the NOC. The applicant's comparative table between the NOC and the reference letters submitted to the Court failed to convince this Court (Applicant's Reply, para 6). Furthermore, the Officer noted that it would be unlikely for a company to hire the applicant for a position (Construction Project Manager) for which he had no apparent previous experience (Tribunal Record, p 8). Thus, on the basis of this information, the Court is of the opinion that the Officer's decision was reasonable.
24 ????Following the decision to the effect that the application was ineligible for processing and hence refused, the applicant attempted to perfect his application (Tribunal Record, pp 41-42). For instance, he explained that the use of ink-jet printers and the particular type of paper used by the employers is common practice for businesses in Nigeria (Applicant's Record, Applicant's Affidavit, p 16; Affidavit of Arinze Samuel Chukwudile, p 49), and that the font used on the letters is a default font on many computers in Nigeria (Applicant's Record, Applicant's affidavit, paras 31-32, pp 16-17). The Court agrees with the respondent that these statements made by the applicant in his own affidavit with respect to generalized business practice in Nigeria as to the paper, printer and font typically used are self-serving statements. (Applicant's Record, Affidavit of the Applicant, paras 28, 30 and 32, pp 16-17).
25 ????As explained earlier, the burden of providing sufficient information rests on the applicant, and where the Officer's concerns arise directly from the requirements of the Act or its Regulations, there is no duty on the Officer to raise doubts or concerns with the applicant (Kaur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 442 at para 11, [2010] F.C.J. No. 587 (QL) [Kaur]; Hassani, above, at para 24). Also, and contrary to the applicant's submission, there is no such absolute duty on the Officer where the application, on its face, is void of credibility. In terms of sufficient information, the onus will not shift on the Officer simply on the basis that the application is "complete". The applicant has the burden to put together an application that is not only "complete" but relevant, convincing and unambiguous (Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2012 FC 526, [2012] F.C.J. No. 548; Kamchibekov, above, at para 26). Despite the distinction that the applicant attempts to make between sufficiency and authenticity, the fact of the matter is that a complete application is in fact insufficient if the information it includes is irrelevant, unconvincing or ambiguous.
26 ????Moreover, the Court refers to the observations of Justice Zinn in Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 620 at para 7, [2009] F.C.J. No. 797:
??????? [7] I find that there is no merit to the submission that the officer ought to have provided the applicant with an opportunity to address his concerns. Justice Russell in Ling v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1198, reviewed the law as to when a visa officer ought to provide such an opportunity. Relying on Ali v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 468, he noted firstly that there was no statutory right to an interview, or any dialogue of the sort suggested here. Secondly, it was noted that generally an opportunity to respond is available only when the officer has information of which the applicant is not aware. As in Ling, that is not the situation here and thus no opportunity was required to be given to Mr. Singh to address the officer's concerns. Further, when as here the officer is relying only on materials submitted by or known to the applicant, there is no need for an interview.?
27 ????Finally, the applicant relies on the case of Patel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 571 at paras 21-27, [2011] F.C.J. No. 714 (QL) [Patel], to support his argument that when the concern relates to the veracity (authenticity) of a document, as opposed to its sufficiency, an officer is obligated to inform an applicant of any concerns. In Patel, the officer was concerned about the veracity of the letter because the duties appeared to be copied directly from the NOC descriptions. The Court held that it was an error not to inform the applicant of such doubts on the credibility of the submitted documents and set aside the officer's decision for breach of procedural fairness. However, the Patel decision is distinguishable from the present case. Indeed, in Patel, the Court found that the officer's reasons were inadequate (Patel, para 26). On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court is of the view that the Officer's reasons are adequate, as they explicitly make reference to the issue of "credibility and fabrication for immigration purposes".
28 ????In the result, the applicant has not established that the Officer erred in considering the information before him, or that the Officer had a duty to give the applicant an opportunity to address his concerns. On the basis of the record taken as a whole and discussed above, the Court is therefore of the view that the Officer's decision was not unreasonable (Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 SCR 708; Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 SCR 160; Construction Labour Relations v Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65, [2012] S.C.J. No. 65).
29 ????Consequently, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified.
Source: http://visalawcanada.blogspot.com/2013/01/visa-officer-concern-over-reference.html
katie couric barista university of kentucky ncaa oakland news alec baldwin alec baldwin
No comments:
Post a Comment