Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date: 19991202


Docket: IMM-60-99


BETWEEN:

     TARIQ UR RAHMAN

     Applicant

     - and -


     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


     Respondent


     REASONS FOR ORDER

REED J.:

[1]      The applicant seeks to have a decision of a visa officer refusing to grant him an immigrant visa set aside. The applicant states that the visa officer denied him a fair hearing because: she conducted the interview in an aggressive manner (like a policeman interrogating someone); she did not pay any attention to his answers; she used a loud and angry tone of voice and created an atmosphere that made him feel very ill at ease, and thus, impeded his ability to answer her questions.

[2]      He also states that he was not made aware of the visa officer"s main concern about his application: doubts about the validity of his work reference letter; doubt that he met the requirements of a cook as described in the CCDO or NOC.

[3]      The visa officer filed an affidavit asserting that: she had not been unfriendly or unapproachable, that this was not her nature; she had not been frowning or used a loud voice; she had conducted the interview in a professional manner.

[4]      She asserts that she was concerned about the letters because they had different letter heads ("Nick"s Restaurant and Ice Cream" and "Nick"s Restaurant"), and they were signed by different people. She states that one gave a very detailed description of the applicant"s apparent duties, while the other did not. Also, in response to questions about the restaurant, the applicant at one point stated that he was one of four cooks and supervised the assistant cooks, thus implying a large establishment, while on another occasion he stated that the restaurant"s lunch menu consisted of only 8 items, thus signifying a small establishment. As a result, the visa officer felt that she could not rely on the reference letters.

[5]      In her affidavit, the visa officer gives quite a different version from the applicant of the questioning that occurred during the interview about the applicant"s duties at Nick"s Restaurant:

     6.      When discussing his duties at this restaurant, the Applicant stated he made grocery lists, placed the orders and kept food items in order. I asked the Applicant to described a dish from the menu. He sat silently. He told me one of the specials of the day would be lasagna, but he couldn"t tell me how to prepare it. The Applicant also told me that he fries fish, but couldn"t tell me what kind of spices he would use to enhance the flavour. I was not satisfied that the applicant met the definition of a cook in that he lacked the experience required under this occupation. Furthermore, he did not meet the specific vocational preparation (SVP) factor of this occupation.

[6]      The visa officer"s CAIPS notes, which were prepared contemporaneously with the interview state:

     NICKS: SEAFOOD PLATTERS, ARE SPECIALTY. YOUR DUTIES? START COOKING, KEEP FOOD ITEMS IN ORDER, MAKE GROCERY LISTS, PLACE ORDERS, ONE OF 4 COOKS, TELL ASS"T COOKS WHAT TO DO. 8 ITEMS ON LUNCH MENU. HE DECIDES SPECAIL [SIC] OF DAY. HOW DETERMINED? POPULARITY, FOOD AVAILABILITY. TRIES TO TELL ME HE MAKES LASAGNA, BUT CAN"T TELL ME HOW. FRIES FISH, FIRST DIPPED IN FLOUR. WHAT SPICES? DOESN"T UNDERSTAND WHAT I"M ASKING. I ASK AGAIN FOR RECIPE. I DON"T KNOW IF HE IS NERVOUSE [SIC], OR NOT A COOK. I READ HIS LOR FROM NICKS. IT STATES: "HE PREPARES FOOD IN APPROPRIATE DISHES IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROPER SAUCE, GRAVIES AND/OR GARNISHES" I ASK HIM TO DESCRIBE A DISH AND IT"S SAUCE. SILENCE. I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT SUBJECT IS A COOK.

[7]      It is always difficult for a reviewing Court when there are contradictory affidavits attesting to the conduct of the interview. Each case, however, must be decided on its own facts. I have not been persuaded that in this case the visa officer"s conduct at the interview created an atmosphere that impeded the applicant"s ability to answer her questions. Rather, the record shows that he simply did not have the qualifications or experience for the job occupation under which he was applying.

[8]      The application will therefore be dismissed.



    

                             Judge

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 2, 1999

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.