Federal Court Decisions

                                                                                                                                             Date: 20020301

                                                                                                                                  Docket: IMM-2606-01

                                                                                                                   Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 213

Between:

                               BIPIN RATILAL PATEL, c/o Prashant Ajmera

                                          & Associates, 320 Prince Albert,

                                             Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 2N7,

                                                                                                                        Applicant

                                                              - and -

                                       THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                               AND IMMIGRATION, c/o Justice Department,

                          Complexe Guy Favreau, 200 west René-Lévesque,

                          East Tower, 5^th Floor, Montreal (Quebec), H2Z 1X4

                                                                                                                    Respondent

                                                REASONS FOR ORDER

PINARD J.:

[1]         This is an application for judicial review with respect to the decision of Valmond Allain, a visa officer (the "officer") at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, India, dated April 20, 2001, determining that the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the independent category.

[2]         The applicant is a citizen of India. He submitted his application for permanent residence under the occupation of accountant (NOC 1111.2). He was interviewed on April 18, 2001.

[3]         In his affidavit and Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System ("CAIPS") notes, the officer states that the applicant produced a copy of a letter from Suchi Foams which was noted to contain a description of duties almost identical to that of the definition given in the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") manual for the occupation of "accountant". As well, the duties described in the letter differed from what the applicant had stated previously during the interview. When asked to explain this discrepancy, he "was not able to provide more information to reconcile the difference".

[4]         The applicant submits that the officer, if not satisfied with the Suchi Foams letter and the fact it resembled to a high degree the description in the NOC manual, should have made independent verifications. I do not agree with this statement. Firstly, the onus is on the applicant to show that his entry to Canada would not be contrary to the Immigration Act or the Regulations. As well, this Court in Ahmad v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1166 (T.D.) (QL), confirms the following at paragraph 3:

. . . The assessment of the credibility of all the evidence that is put before a trier of fact, whether that evidence be testimonial or documentary, is entirely a matter for the trier's appreciation and there is no duty on the part of the trier of fact to go further and make his or her own inquiries. . . .

[5]         Here, the applicant was given the opportunity to explain the differences between his statement and the letter, but was not able to do so. Indeed, the officer satisfied himself that the applicant did not qualify for the occupation of accountant only after it had become apparent that the applicant was unable to explain why the letter did not reflect the duties he said he had performed as an accountant.

[6]         Finally, I find it doubtful that the officer, as alleged by the applicant, had not been listening to the applicant. As evidenced by the CAIPS notes, the periods the applicant had worked as a junior accountant and accountant are clearly separated into two distinct categories. As well, above each description of duties is the title "Experience" and then "Present Duties". After reviewing this portion of the CAIPS notes, it is my impression that the duties are well noted and differ quite importantly in nature. I therefore feel that the officer did indeed listen to the applicant and this would have been necessary in order for him to have made the distinction between the two positions which is so clearly reflected in his notes.

[7]         For the foregoing reasons, the intervention of this Court is not warranted. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                                                         

       JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

March 1, 2002