Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content





Date: 20001005


Docket: IMM-2889-99



BETWEEN:


     SUNIL JAYANTIBHAI DHAWAN


     Applicant


     - and -



     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


     Respondent


     REASONS FOR ORDER

HANSEN, J.:


[1]      Sunil Jayantibhai Dhawan applied for permanent residence in Canada under the independent class at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi. His application was refused, without an interview, on April 26, 1999. He seeks judicial review of this decision.

[2]      The applicant asked to be assessed in his intended occupation under National Occupational Classification ("NOC") 0111.0, Director of Accounting. After reviewing the documents submitted with respect to the applicant's education and work history, the visa officer concluded he did not meet the employment requirements for this occupation.

[3]      The visa officer then assessed the applicant under the NOC occupations 1231.0, Bookkeeper and 1431.0, Accounting Clerk. He was awarded a total of 52 units of assessment and 50 units of assessment respectively in these occupations. Having failed to obtain the minimum units of assessment to qualify for an interview, his application was refused at the "paper screening" stage.

[4]      Both the CAIPS notes and her affidavit indicate the visa officer had concerns with respect to the veracity of the documents the applicant submitted attesting to his work experience.

[5]      The applicant submits that the visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by not providing him with an opportunity to address the concerns. Despite the visa officer's concerns, however, the applicant was given the benefit of the doubt and awarded the maximum units of assessment for both his education and experience. Under these circumstances, there was no breach of the duty of fairness.

[6]      Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.



[7]          Neither party submitted a question for certification.



     "Dolores M. Hansen"

                             J.F.C.C.


OTTAWA, ONTARIO

October 5, 2000

 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.