Date: 20000406
Docket: IMM-2256-99
BETWEEN:
DANIEL DAVOU DABI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, April 5, 2000)
HANSEN J.
[1] At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter, I gave oral reasons setting aside the decision of the visa officer. These are the reasons given, which have been edited for clarity and readability.
[2] The applicant applies for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer dated March 19, 1999 at the Canadian Consulate General, New York City, wherein she refused his application for permanent residence in the independent category.
[3] The applicant, without the assistance of counsel, submitted an application indicating his current occupation as "graduate student (research)" and his intended occupation as "teaching, research, consulting etc". He was, at the time of his application, completing his Ph.D. in the School of Geography and Geology at McMaster University, funded by the International Branch of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). His particular project involved research on "water use", "analysing the interrelationships between the economy and environment". He had completed his BSc in Geography and his MSc in Environmental and Resources Planning at the University of Jos, Nigeria. A reference letter from that institution indicated he had been a member of research teams on the following projects: "Jos Plateau Environmental Resources Development Programme" and "Jos-McMaster Drought and Rural Water Use Research Project", the latter sponsored by CIDA.
[4] A letter dated June 3, 1998 was sent to the applicant from the Consulate General in Buffalo, N.Y., requesting further documentation and more specific information with respect to his intended occupation in Canada. In response to this request, the applicant forwarded letters of reference and wrote:
| My intended occupation in Canada is Teaching and Research because the two usually go together. However, I will be able to work with any other sector that deals with the environment, economy, business and resource management, particularly sustainable development. |
[5] The visa officer"s CAIPS notes include "pre-screening" information in which he is described as "32 M. Single, Nigeria, Environmental Planner." As explained in the visa officer"s affidavit, this description records the impressions of the case analyst who performs a "paper screening" of the applicant prior to the actual interview and assessment by the visa officer.
[6] There are two aspects to the issue before the Court: whether the visa officer had a duty to inform the applicant of his assessment under a particular occupation, and whether the visa officer had a duty to elicit specific information regarding his qualifications in that field?
[7] There is no question that it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide all the relevant information which may assist his application. However, once the visa officer has decided to assess an applicant in a particular occupation, as in this instance, then procedural fairness dictates the visa officer should make this known to the applicant.
[8] In my view, this does not place an onerous burden on the visa officer and provides some context for the applicant when responding to questions during the interview.
[9] With respect to eliciting specific information regarding the applicant"s qualifications in that occupation, I agree with the applicant"s position that the visa officer"s testimony under cross-examination does reflect a narrow view of the duties performed by environmental planners which resulted in a reluctance to look behind the labels and to consider the applicants actual experience.
[10] While it is not clear whether the applicant would have succeeded, in this case there was sufficient evidence to support at least a more thorough inquiry by the visa officer in the applicant"s qualifications as an environmental planner.
ORDER
[11] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the visa officer is set aside and the matter is remitted back for reconsideration by a different visa officer.
[12] The parties stated there was no question for certification.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
April 6, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-2256-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: DANIEL DAVOU DABI |
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER BY: HANSEN J. |
| DATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 2000 |
| APPEARANCES: Mr. D. Clifford Luyt |
| For the Applicant |
| Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst |
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: D. Clifford Luyt |
Barrister & Solicitor
120 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 500
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1E2
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
| For the Respondent |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000406
Docket: IMM-2256-99
Between:
| DANIEL DAVOU DABI |
Applicant
| - and - |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER