Date: 20000531
Docket: IMM-6080-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 31st day of May, 2000
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE E. HENEGHAN
BETWEEN:
SERGUEI ZALEVSKI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision rendered by Halina Roznawski (the "visa officer") and dated October 28, 1998 under Section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7. In her decision, the visa officer refused the application of Serguei Zalevski (the "Applicant") for permanent residence in Canada. The Applicant had applied under the self-employed category.
[2] On October 28, 1998, the visa officer interviewed the Applicant. The visa officer noted that the Applicant did not provide the updated documents which had been requested in the interview letter. The most important of these documents were financial documents showing the Applicant's financial ability to establish a business in Canada.
[3] The Applicant"s application was denied in a letter dated October 28, 1998. In the letter, the visa officer was of the opinion that the Applicant did not meet the definition of a "self-employed" person contained in the Immigration Act , R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2. The Applicant lacked the requisite managerial and business ability and experience. The visa officer assessed the Applicant as a diesel mechanic. He obtained 53 units of assessment. The visa officer also assessed the Applicant"s wife under the occupation of chef. She obtained 54 units of assessment without an interview. Based on these units of assessment, the visa officer refused the Applicant"s application for permanent residence.
[4] In the Memorandum of Fact and Law, counsel for the Applicant advanced three grounds for the judicial review of the visa officer"s decision to refuse the Applicant"s application for permanent residence. Counsel for the Applicant withdrew all but one submission at the time of the hearing. Thus, this judicial review focuses on one question: Did the visa officer err by denying the Applicant procedural fairness in refusing to adjourn the interview?
[5] The Applicant submits that he wished to adjourn the interview to have additional time to produce documents relating to his ability to establish a business in Canada. The Applicant planned to obtain these documents when he returned to his home country. He alleges that his request for additional time was refused by the visa officer.
[6] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "Respondent") maintains that the Applicant"s argument must fail as a result of the lack of evidence filed in support of the Applicant"s submission. The Respondent indicates that Applicant has failed to provide any evidence showing that the Applicant requested an adjournment or that the visa officer refused a request made by the Applicant for additional time.
[7] I agree with the Respondent. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the visa officer committed a reviewable error. There is no evidence that the Applicant sought an adjournment or that the visa officer refused a request to adjourn the interview.
[8] Accordingly, this application must be dismissed.
[9] Counsel for the parties have seven days following their receipt of these reasons to request that a question be certified.
ORDER
[10] IT IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review be dismissed.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 31, 2000