Date: 20030722
Docket: IMM-2516-02
Citation: 2003 FC 907
Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday, the 22nd day of July 2003
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
BOGDAN HRABCHUK
(also known as BOHDAN HRABCHUK)
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] Mr. Hrabchuk is a citizen of Ukraine who on September 19, 2000 was nominated by the Province of Manitoba as a provincial nominee. A provincial nominee was, at the time, defined in subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 ("Regulations") to mean:
| "provincial nominee" means an immigrant whose admission is considered, pursuant to an agreement under section 109 of the Act between the Minister and the government of the province to which the immigrant intends to proceed, to be of significant benefit to the industrial development of that province.
|
|
"candidat d'une province" désigne un immigrant dont l'admission constitue un avantage appréciable pour le développement industriel d'une province, aux termes d'un accord conclu entre le ministre et le gouvernement de cette province conformément à l'article 109 de la Loi.
|
|
|
|
|
[2] Thereafter, Mr. Hrabchuk applied for permanent residence in Canada. Mr. Hrabchuk's application was paper screened at the Canadian Embassy at Kiev and he received 99 units of assessment. The CAIPS notes record that in response to a request made to him for a selection decision, the visa officer wrote "will pass on selection decision". The outstanding issues were, therefore, admissibility and verifying Mr. Hrabchuk' s employment experience and education. The Embassy then initiated checks to verify Mr. Hrabchuk's experience and education.
[3] The Embassy was advised, as a result of the checks, that one of the two diplomas provided by Mr. Hrabchuk as proof of his education as a welder was never issued by the institution. The visa officer was therefore concerned that Mr. Hrabchuk had misrepresented his education, and by a letter asked Mr. Hrabchuk to provide an explanation. Mr. Hrabchuk provided an explanation in a letter which also included a request for an interview in order to meet "immigration requirements". Mr. Hrabchuk's explanation regarding the impugned diploma was not regarded as compelling or credible by the visa officer. Mr. Hrabchuk then retained counsel who provided the visa officer with further documents relevant to the issues of experience and education, and again requested an interview so that Mr. Hrabchuk could satisfy the visa officer that he had truthfully answered questions, had not intended to provide inaccurate documentation, and is a qualified electric and gas welder.
[4] Mr. Hrabchuk's application for permanent residence was refused by the visa officer without an interview. On cross-examination, the only reason provided by the visa officer as to why he did not interview Mr. Hrabchuk was:
I gave the Applicant a chance to address my concern about the fraudulent documents that he submitted. He provided information that I was not satisfied with. I did not feel an interview was warranted, and I rendered my decision accordingly.
[5] The visa officer gave no weight to any of the other documents submitted in support of the application because they came directly from Mr. Hrabchuk and, in the words of the refusal letter, Mr. Hrabchuk had "demonstrated you are willing to submit fraudulent documents".
[6] For the reasons which follow, I have concluded that it was a reviewable error for the visa officer to reject Mr. Hrabchuk's application without an interview.
[7] At the relevant time, admission to Canada was governed by the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 ("Act"). The general principle of admissibility of immigrants was expressed in subsection 6(1) of the Act in the following terms:
| 6(1) Subject to this Act and the regulations, any immigrant, including a Convention refugee, and all dependants, if any, may be granted landing if it is established to the satisfaction of an immigration officer that the immigrant meets the selection standards established by the regulations for the purpose of determining whether or not and the degree to which the immigrant will be able to become successfully established in Canada, as determined in accordance with the regulations. [underlining added]
|
|
6(1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi et de ses règlements, tout immigrant, notamment tout réfugié au sens de la Convention, ainsi que toutes les personnes à sa charge peuvent obtenir le droit d'établissement si l'agent d'immigration est convaincu que l'immigrant satisfait aux normes réglementaires de sélection visant à déterminer s'il pourra ou non réussir son installation au Canada, au sens des règlements, et si oui, dans quelle mesure. [Le souligné est de moi.]
|
|
|
|
|
[8] The Regulations established selection standards in subsections 8(1) and (2) as follows:
| 8(1) Subject to section 11.1, for the purpose of determining whether an immigrant and the immigrant's dependants, other than a member of the family class, a Convention refugee seeking resettlement or an immigrant who intends to reside in the Province of Quebec, will be able to become successfully established in Canada, a visa officer shall assess that immigrant or, at the option of the immigrant, the spouse of that immigrant (a) in the case of an immigrant, other than an immigrant described in paragraph (b) or (c), on the basis of each of the factors listed in Column I of Schedule I; (b) in the case of an immigrant who intends to be a self-employed person in Canada, on the basis of each of the factors listed in Column I of Schedule I, other than the factor set out in item 5 thereof;
(c) in the case of an entrepreneur, an investor or a provincial nominee, on the basis of each of the factors listed in column I of Schedule I, other than the factors set out in items 4 and 5 thereof;
(d) [Revoked, SOR/85-1038, s. 3]
(e) [Revoked, SOR/91-433, s. 3] (2) A visa officer shall award to an immigrant who is assessed on the basis of factors listed in Column I of Schedule I the appropriate number of units of assessment for each factor in accordance with the criteria set out in Column II thereof opposite that factor, but he shall not award for any factor more units of assessment than the maximum number set out in Column III thereof opposite that factor. [underlining added]
|
|
8. (1) Sous réserve de l'article 11.1, afin de déterminer si un immigrant et les personnes à sa charge, à l'exception d'un parent, d'un réfugié au sens de la Convention cherchant à se réinstaller et d'un immigrant qui entend résider au Québec, pourront réussir leur installation au Canada, l'agent des visas apprécie l'immigrant ou, au choix de ce dernier, son conjoint :
a) dans le cas d'un immigrant qui n'est pas visé aux alinéas b) ou c), suivant chacun des facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I;
b) dans le cas d'un immigrant qui compte devenir un travailleur autonome au Canada, suivant chacun des facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I, autre que le facteur visé à l'article 5 de cette annexe;
c) dans le cas d'un entrepreneur, d'un investisseur ou d'un candidat d'une province, suivant chacun des facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I, sauf ceux visés aux articles 4 et 5 de cette annexe;
d) [Abrogé, DORS/85-1038, art. 3]
e) [Abrogé, DORS/91-433, art. 3]
(2) Un agent des visas doit donner à l'immigrant qui est apprécié suivant les facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I le nombre voulu de points d'appréciation pour chaque facteur, en s'en tenant au maximum fixé à la colonne III, conformément aux critères visés dans la colonne II de cette annexe vis-à-vis de ce facteur. [Le souligné est de moi.] |
|
|
|
|
[9] The entitlement to an interview was governed by section 11.1 of the Regulations, referenced in subsection 8(1). This section provided that:
| 11.1 For the purpose of determining whether an immigrant and the immigrant's dependants will be able to become successfully established in Canada, a visa officer is not required to conduct an interview unless, based on a review of the visa application and the documents submitted in support thereof,
(a) the immigrant is an immigrant described in paragraph 8(1)(a) and is awarded, for the factors set out in column I of items 1 to 8 of Schedule I, including, where required by these Regulations, at least one unit of assessment for each of the factors set out in column I of items 3 and 4 of that Schedule,
(i) at least 60 units of assessment, where the immigrant is not an assisted relative, (ii) at least 55 units of assessment, where the immigrant is an assisted relative referred to in paragraph 10(1)(b), (iii) at least 45 units of assessment, where the immigrant is an assisted relative referred to in clause 10(1.1)(d)(i)(A), and (iv) at least 50 units of assessment, where the immigrant is an assisted relative referred to in clause 10(1.1)(d)(i)(B); or
(b) the immigrant is an entrepreneur, an investor, a provincial nominee or a self-employed person. [underlining added] |
|
11.1 Afin de déterminer si un immigrant et les personnes à sa charge pourront réussir leur installation au Canada, l'agent des visas n'est pas obligé de tenir une entrevue, sauf si l'immigrant, d'après l'étude de sa demande de visa et des documents à l'appui :
a) soit est visé à l'alinéa 8(1)a) et se voit accorder au moins le nombre suivant de points d'appréciation pour les facteurs mentionnés à la colonne I des articles 1 à 8 de l'annexe I, y compris, dans les cas où le présent règlement l'exige, au moins un point d'appréciation pour chacun des facteurs mentionnés à la colonne I des articles 3 et 4 de cette annexe :
(i) 60 points d'appréciation, dans le cas d'un immigrant qui n'est pas un parent aidé, (ii) 55 points d'appréciation, dans le cas d'un parent aidé visé à l'alinéa 10(1)b),
(iii) 45 points d'appréciation, dans le cas d'un parent aidé visé à la division 10(1.1)d)(i)(A),
(iv) 50 points d'appréciation, dans le cas d'un parent aidé visé à la division 10(1.1)d)(i)(B);
b) soit est un candidat d'une province, un entrepreneur, un investisseur ou un travailleur autonome. [Le souligné est de moi.]
|
|
|
|
|
[10] The Regulations were, therefore, express that a provincial nominee was to be assessed on the basis of the factors listed in column 1 of Schedule I to the Regulations (except factors 4 and 5). Further, if a review of the visa application and documents established that an immigrant was a provincial nominee, an interview was required for the purpose of determining if the immigrant and his or her dependents would be able to become successfully established in Canada.
[11] This interpretation is supported by Citizenship and Immigration Canada's Operations Manual which, in respect of provincial nominees, advised visa officers that:
While interviews of candidates will hopefully seldom be required, provincial nominees should not be refused without an interview. [underlining added]
[12] Counsel for the Minister argued, based upon the wording contained in Factor 9 in Schedule I to the Regulations, that an interview was only required in order to assess personal suitability. I respectfully disagree. Section 6(1) of the Act required assessment against the selection standards established by the Regulations for the purpose of determining the likelihood of successful establishment in Canada. In my view, subsection 8(1) of the Regulations established those selection standards and was subject to section 11.1 of the Regulations. In turn, section 11.1 required that for certain categories of applicants, the assessment of the likelihood of successful establishment should be done only after an interview. One such category was provincial nominees.
[13] Counsel for the Minister also argued that based upon the visa officer's review of the application and the supporting documents, the visa officer had decided to issue a visa, subject to verifying experience and education. Therefore, the application was at a "post-interview" stage. It was argued that, as a result, there was no requirement to interview Mr. Hrabchuk. I cannot so restrict the plain meaning of the words used in subsection 8(1) and section 11.1 of the Regulations. The visa officer was not obliged to accept Mr. Hrabchuk's application for permanent residence but, in my view, so long as Mr. Hrabchuk was in possession of a valid certificate of nomination, it was a reviewable error for the visa officer to refuse the application without interviewing Mr. Hrabchuk.
[14] The application for judicial review will therefore be allowed.
[15] Counsel posed no question for certification and no question arises on this record.
ORDER
[16] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed and the decision of the visa officer communicated by letter dated May 3, 2002 is hereby set aside.
2. The application is remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2516-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: Bogdan Hrabchuk (also known as Bohdan Hrabchuk) v.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: July 9, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER:
AND ORDER: Hon. Madam Justice Dawson
DATED: July 22, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Mira Thow FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Penny Piper FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Zaifman Associates
Winnipeg, Manitoba FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General FOR THE RESPONDENT
of Canada