CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Permanent Residents |
Islam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-22-99
Lemieux J.
23/12/99
10 pp.
Application for judicial review of visa officer's decision, following assessment, refusing permanent residency with intended occupation as chemist--Issue whether applicant given meaningful opportunity herein to deal with concern expressed at interview by visa officer concerning circumstances surrounding letter of recommendation--Visa officer contacted employer (W. R. Grace and Co.) before interview, and human resources director stated applicant had worked for them as contract employee working in capacity of laboratory support for short time and that author of letter of recommendation had told him had not written letter of recommendation on Grace letterhead--Visa officer concerned letter might be fraudulent--Visa officer admitted did not provide applicant with opportunity to contact employer or author of letter of recommendation to clear up concerns--Visa officer felt letter fraudulent given applicant's answer and reaction (had no explanation) at interview--Also felt, given job description provided by employer, employment did not allow for applicant to be assessed as chemist--Assessed applicant 0 units for experience and 2 units for personal suitability--After interview, applicant contacted placement agency which provided letter confirming applicant had worked on assignment as analytical chemist for it, working for Grace--Also, author of letter of recommendation confirmed applicant had worked as chemist and had been mistaken in saying letter of reference not on employer letterhead--When applicant tried to present new evidence, was advised refusal of permanent residence final and no provisions for appeal--Application allowed--Two breaches of procedural fairness--Applicant should have been given specific notice of issue (suspicion letter of recommendation fraudulent) prior to interview--Should also have been given opportunity to clarify issue--Applicant mistakenly advised no jurisdiction to reconsider decision on account of new evidence--Immigration officer has power to reopen file when in interest of justice to do so: Nouranidoust v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 1 F.C. 123 (T.D.)--Principle should have been applied here.