Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 19990928 Docket: IMM-5909-98

BETWEEN:

MARIA GERONIMO VILLANUEVA

Applicant

- and -

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta, on August 17, 1999, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.

"Max M. Teitelbaum"

J.F.C.C.

Ottawa, Ontario September 28, 1999

ORIGINAL

1                                          Court No: IMM-5909-98 2

3                   IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

4                           TRIAL DIVISION 5

6 BETWEEN: 7

8                      MARIA GERONIMO VILLANUEVA Applicant 10

12

13              THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION 14    Respondent 15

16 -----------------------------------------------------------­17

18                       EXCERPT OF PROCEEDINGS

19

20 --------------------------------------------------_-------­21

22

23                          Calgary, Alberta August 17, 1999 24

2 5                                            FEDERAL COiJR-7 0F CANADA

26

C.    AUG 26 1999

27                                                  aour

***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***

1     Excerpt of Proceedings taken at the Federal Court of Canada,

2     Third Floor, 635 - 8th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta.

3 -----------------------------------------------------------­4 August 17, 1999

5     The Honourable                     Federal Court of Canada Mr. Justice Teitelbaum

6

R. Tumanon, Esq.                   For the Applicant

7

B. Hardstaff, Esq.                 For the Respondent

8

Lisa Kooi, CSR(A)                  Official Court Reporter

9

10

11     THE COURT:                    I'm going to allow the

12    application for judicial review without asking counsel to

13    give a reply because I don't think it's necessary. I'm

14    going to allow the application because there are too many

15    "holes" in the affidavit of the visa officer.

16                   I'm satisfied from reading the C.A.I.P.S.

17    notes and from reading her affidavit that the visa officer

18    did not sufficiently explain a number of important matters.

19    A very important matter with regard to the issue of

20     suitability was the question of whether or not the applicant 21       could support herself.

22                   In the visa officer's C.A.I.P.S. notes, she

23    states that the applicant is going to bring zero dollars

24    with her to Canada. The applicant says she's going to bring

25    $4,100 with her to Canada. The visa officer does say in her

26    affidavit that she forgot to assess the issue of the quantum

27    of monies that the applicant will bring to Canada during the

***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***

1     interview. I think that that indicates that the visa

2     officer did not do a very thorough job in her interview, or

3     at least it indicates that she could have done a more

4     thorough job than she did.

5                   The visa officer granted 15 points for

6     education. The evidence before me shows that the applicant

7     had both the education and the training to get 17 points.

8     At least from the evidence that I have, that is so. I don't

9     know what was in the mind of the visa officer when she only

10    granted 15 points. It appears from the evidence, and

11    without a further explanation from the visa officer, I must

12    say I'm satisfied that the experience would appear to

13    warrant six units instead of the four that was granted.

14                  This may all change in a more thorough

15      interview before another visa officer, and for this reason,

16      I'm allowing the application for judicial review, returning

17      this matter so that the applicant be interviewed once again

18      before a different visa officer at which time, the applicant

19      could make whatever evidence she is able to make, and the 20 visa officer will then assess the applicant in accordance 21    with the law.

22                   Thank you all very, very much.

23    MR. HARDSTAFF:                 Thank you, sir.

24    THE COURT:                     Oh, I must ask, are there any

25    questions for certification?

26    MR. HARDSTAFF:                 I can think of none. I think

27    this is a fact specific case.

***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***

1     THE COURT:                    All right. If there are no

2     questions for certification...

3 ------------------------------------------_--__--__--__--__­4                         PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED

5 --------_---------------------_----------------------------­6           Certificate of Transcript

7

8       I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing pages

9       1 to 4 are a true and faithful transcript of the proceedings

10    taken down by me in shorthand and transcribed from my

11    shorthand notes to the best of my skill and ability.

12    Dated at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta, this 25th 13      day of Auqust, A.D. 1999.

14 15 16 17 18 19

i

2 0

21                             Lisa ooi, CSR(A)

22                             Court Reporter 23

24     CAT - Printed August 25, 1999 25 LK

26 27

***AMICUS REPORTING GROUP***

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

COURT FILE NO.:                       IMM-5909-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:                     MARIA GERONIMO VILLANUEVA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                Calgary, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING:                   August 17,1999

REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM DATED:           September 28, 1999

APPEARANCES

Mr. Richard T. Tumanon                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. W. Brad Hardstaff                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

Mr. Richard T. Tumanon                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT Calgary, Alberta

Mr. Morris Rosenberg                                                               FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 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.