Date: 19990318
Docket: IMM-4179-98
BETWEEN:
FANG ZHANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of visa officer John Oliver (the Visa Officer) whereby Zhang Fang (the Applicant) was refused an employment authorization.
[2] The Applicant is a citizen of the People"s Republic of China. Based on an initial investment of $200,000 in a company in British Columbia, she applied for an employment authorization pursuant to s. 20(5)e)(i). This subparagraph permits a visa officer to issue a visa where the applicant"s employment will create or maintain significant employment, benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents.
[3] An interview was convoked to verify that the Applicant was not an intended immigrant. The interview was conducted by the Visa Officer at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing.
[4] Prior to this application, the Applicant had twice applied for visas for business purposes. In 1995, she received a visa and visited Canada for several months. In 1997, her application was refused. On the current application form, the applicant is asked if she has ever been refused a visa to travel in Canada. The Applicant responded "No". During the interview, the Visa Officer asked if she had ever been refused a visitor"s visa and she answered "No".
[5] The Visa Officer rejected her application mainly because she was not forthright, which led him to conclude that her application was not bona fides.
[6] The Applicant has submitted the case of Muliadi v. MEI1 for the proposition that where a visa officer has concerns with respect to the evidence before him or her, the visa officer is obliged to give the applicant an opportunity to address those concerns in the interest of fairness. Muliadi, as the Respondent points out, is not applicable since it was concerned with extrinsic evidence.
[7] The duty of fairness does not place, in my opinion, an obligation on the visa officer to ask specific questions. Instead, it simply requires "an appropriate line of questioning".2 In the present case, I find that the Applicant was asked several times whether she had ever been refused for a visitor"s visa. Each time she responded in the negative. Her application form incorrectly represents that she had never been refused a visa to travel to Canada, which includes student, work or visitor"s visas. I am satisfied that by repeating the question at various times and in various forms during the interview, the Visa Officer has satisfied his duty of alerting her to his concerns.
[8] Subsection 9(3) of the Act requires the applicant to answer all questions truthfully posed by a visa officer:
| Duty to answer questions |
| 9(3) Every person shall answer truthfully all questions put to that person by a visa officer and shall produce such documentation as may be required by the visa officer for the purpose of establishing that his admission would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations. |
In the circumstances, it was clearly open to the Visa Officer to find that the Applicant was not forthright and, as a result, was not a bona fide visitor to Canada.
[9] In addition to finding her application lacked bona fides, the Visa Officer also found that she did not have sufficient knowledge or experience to perform the job for which she was seeking the visa. Given that her stated purpose was that she would be in charge of day-to-day duties at Finetech Enterprises Ltd. (the "Company"), yet was unable to provide clarification of her duties except that she would be in charge of ordering; and given that she did not provide any indication as to how her previous experience was relevant to this job, this finding was not unreasonable.
[10] Finally, the Applicant submits that the Regulations do not require that an applicant for an employment authorization under s. 20(5)e)(i) possess identical experience in the proposed employment in Canada. I reject this argument. The exceptions listed in subsection (5) are discretionary and, in my opinion, the Visa Officer conducted a proper assessment of the Applicant"s application.
CONCLUSION
[11] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Daniele Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
Vancouver, British Columbia
March 18, 1999
[12] FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DATE OF HEARING: March 16, 1999
COURT NO.: IMM-4179-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Fang Zhang
v.
MCI
| LOCATION OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF MADAME JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
dated March 18, 1999
APPEARANCES BY:
| Mr. Lu Chan for the Applicant |
Ms. Paige Purcell for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Lu Chan for the Applicant
Barrister & Solicitor
Vancouver, BC
Morris Rosenberg for the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
__________________
2 Fong v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1990), 11 Imm L.R. (2d) 205 at 215.