Digests

Mehta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-5596-01

2003 FC 1073, Layden-Stevenson J.

16/9/03

4 pp.

Applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada as independent in intended occupation Financial Manager (NOC 0111.0)--On November 8, 2001, visa officer refused application and applicant applied for judicial review of decision--Applicant citizen of India--On paper screening, applicant awarded 57 units of assessment with respect to intended occupation--Applicant also assessed as Accounting Clerk (NOC 1431.0) and awarded 52 units of assessment-- Because applicant did not receive 60 units of assessment, applicant not granted interview--Application deals only with Financial Manager assessment--Visa officer made significant error--Before refusing application, officer telephoned Munshav Entreprises Ltd. (applicant's place of employment) and asked to speak with applicant--Neither applicant nor owner of company present--Officer spoke to peon (odd job person) who informed officer company had three employees and applicant was "accountant"--Officer indicated she would call again to speak with applicant, but did not--Applicant alleges in relying on information obtained from peon without providing applicant opportunity to respond, officer breached duty of procedural fairness--Clear from refusal letter officer relied upon conversation with peon as one of reasons for decision--Content of conversation not put to disposition of applicant and failure to do so constituting breach of procedural fairness--Where visa officer relies on extrinsic evidence, error will be found if applicant not provided with opportunity to respond to such evidence--Judicial review allowed.