Date: 19990924
Docket: IMM-6018-98
BETWEEN:
QING LONG ZHENG,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD, A.C.J.
[1] The applicant seeks, by way of an application for judicial review, to set aside the decision of an Immigration Officer assigned to the Canadian Embassy in Beijing, dated October 19, 1998, refusing the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada as an independent in the occupational category "Cook, Foreign Foods".
[2] The applicant received only 58 points out of the 70 points required.
[3] The officer determined that the applicant met the "experience" factor but failed to satisfy the education requirements.
[4] The applicant could not conduct the interview with the officer without an interpreter present and was assessed 0 units for the "language" factor.
[5] The applicant received the average score of 4 points for "personal suitability".
[6] The officer found that the document provided by the applicant with his application for the purpose of indicating that he had completed secondary schooling to be suspect.
[7] When interviewed on September 22, 1998, the applicant was presented with the officer"s concerns regarding his claim to completing senior middle school education, given the conflicting information in his cooking certificate and his senior high school certificate.
[8] The applicant then confirmed that he did not, in fact, attend senior middle school and that his highest level of academic attainment was junior middle school.
[9] The applicant"s claim that he was denied procedural fairness is not supported by the record.
[10] The officer did present the applicant with his concerns regarding the discrepancies in the documentation and the applicant thereafter admitted that he had provided false documentation and had not completed senior middle school.
[11] Given the applicant"s admissions there was no need to conduct a further verification of the falseness of the applicant"s document.
[12] Counsel for the applicant claims that the visa officer should have discontinued the interview with the applicant after he had ascertained that the education certificate was false since the applicant was not given the opportunity to disabuse the officer of his negative findings.
[13] The false document dealt with the applicant"s level of education.
[14] It is the obligation of the applicant to produce material that satisfies the visa officer that the person meets the selection criteria.
[15] The officer"s notes indicate that the applicant was confronted with the false document and given every opportunity to respond and explain.
[16] The officer"s notes of the interview on September 22, 1998, contain the following notations made at the end of the interview:
| - He does not meet minimum point criteria to pass selection. |
| - This subject is not a candidate for positive discretion. |
| - Furthermore, the subject is refuse pursuant to A 9(3). The subject uttered a fraudulently obtained/fake document and attempted to pass it off as an accurate reflection of education level. This was germane to his application in that it would directly affect units received for education factor and the final points by 10 units of assessment. |
| - Subject refused on points and A9(3). |
[17] Subsection 9(3) of the Immigration Act requires an applicant to answer truthfully all questions put to that person by a visa officer and to produce such documentation as may be required by the visa officer for the purposes of the Act or the regulations.
[18] The visa officer completed the interview in order to assess the remaining factors for independent and assisted relative applicants.
[19] The reasons and grounds given by the visa officer in the letter of refusal dated October 19, 1998, states that the applicant has not complied with subsection 9(3) of the Act because, as the applicant confirmed at the interview, the applicant provided fraudulent education documents in support of the application. As a result the applicant was inadmissible to Canada.
[20] The letter also stated that the application had been assessed and that the applicant had failed to achieve sufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada.
[21] The letter concluded that the applicant had not met the requirements of sections 9, 10 and subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 or of subsection 9(3) of the Immigration Act, and are inadmissible under paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, pursuant to subsections 9(2) and (4) of the Immigration Act, and that the application is refused.
[22] The letter concluded that any new application would be assessed according to the Immigration Act and Regulations in force at the time that the new application is submitted.
[23] The visa officer provided a full assessment of the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada.
[24] The visa officer"s letter of refusal fully sets out the reasons and grounds for rejecting the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada.
[25] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[26] Counsel for the applicant sought to have the following questions certified:
| 1) Once a negative finding has been made under s. 9(3) of the Immigration Act at an interview should the interview be continued or should the applicant be told that the interview is being discontinued? |
| 2) Can section 9(3) of the Immigration Act be used in conjunction with section 8(1) and 10 of the Immigration Act in order to make a finding under section 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act? |
[27] No question will be certified. Counsel for the applicant has not satisfied me that a serious question of general importance is involved in this proceeding.
(Sgd.) "John D. Richard"
A.C.J.
September 24, 1999
Vancouver, British Columbia
[28]
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-6018-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Qing Long Zheng
v.
M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: September 22, 1999
| REASONS FOR ORDER OF RICHARD, A.C.J. |
DATED: September 24, 1999
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Gerald G. Goldstein for the Applicant |
| Ms. Helen Park for the Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Evans, Goldstein & Company
| Vancouver, BC for the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
| of Canada for the Respondent |