CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-6090-02
2004 FC 55, Mosley J.
14/1/04
11 pp.
Judicial review of Immigration Officer's decision (officer) denying application to extend study permit in Canada-- Applicant, citizen of South Korea, arrived in Canada in February 1997 on student authorization to study English as Second Language at George Brown College--Began courses in January 1998--Renewed student authorization until September 2002--Applied for extension to August 2005 to complete business program--After interview application refused as purpose for coming to Canada satisfied--Applicant arguing denied procedural fairness--Affidavits filed presented opposing evidence as to whether officer informed applicant of evidence obtained from College re: attendance, programs studied--Applicant's actions following interview suggest officer's concerns made known to applicant during interview --Further, final page of Field Operating Support System (FOSS) notes supporting conclusion applicant informed of officer's concerns, as otherwise officer would not have written applicant stated he could not study because of his children-- Procedural fairness respected--Submission no obligation to record applicant's responses in FOSS notes, and therefore absence thereof irrelevant to issue of procedural fairness, rejected--Silence in officer's notes regarding applicant's responses to officer's concerns often gives important insight into whether procedural fairness respected--Record-keeping system of Citizenship and Immigration Canada is entirely within immigration officer's control, and applicant should be able to trust officer will record fair, accurate and complete description of what transpires at interview, including applicant's responses to questions--Reasons why notes may be incomplete including failure to apprise applicant of concerns--Preferable for officer to record applicant's responses to information, particularly when such information gathered from outside source by officer--No legal obligation on officer to record such information, however, more practical and consistent way to make decisions--As to applicant's other argument, officer did not take into account irrelevant considerations or ignore evidence before him in coming to decision--Application dismissed.