Date: 19980706
Docket: IMM-3286-97
BETWEEN:
PABAN KUMAR BARA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD A.C.J.:
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
[1] This is an application to review and set aside a decision of an Immigration Officer dated June 23, 1997, wherein the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.
[2] The applicant obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada, a total of 68 out of a minimum requirement of 70.
BACKGROUND
[3] The applicant was assessed for the occupation of Diesel-Engine Operator (CCDO 9533 118).
[4] The applicant alleges that because his Higher Secondary School Certificate lead to entrance in a university in Bangladesh, he should have been awarded 13 units under the education factor instead of only 10. This would have sufficiently increased the units of assessment required to qualify for immigration to Canada, a total of 71 out of a minimum requirement of 70.
[5] The record discloses that during the interview with the visa officer, the applicant advised that he had studied for a period of ten years towards his matriculatori (Secondary School Certificate), and a further two years towards a trade certificate.
[6] The visa officer advised the applicant of the units of assessment he would be awarded under the education factor and gave him the reasons for his having been awarded 10 units.
[7] The visa officer did not note nor does he recall that the applicant raised the matter of his having studied for his Higher Secondary Certificate at that time or at any other time.
[8] I find that the applicant"s claim in his supporting affidavit that he had disclosed to the visa officer that he had obtained a Higher Secondary Certificate at the time of the interview is not plausible.
[9] The visa officer explored the applicant"s education and his case notes, which are contemporaneous, do not contain any reference to a Higher Secondary Certificate and do refer to all of the certificates submitted by the applicant in his application for residency. In these circumstances, the visa officer carried out his duty.
ANALYSIS
[10] The applicant was provided with an opportunity to advise the visa officer that he had completed a Higher Secondary Certificate and that the post secondary training he underwent required a diploma permitting entry into university level studies.
[11] It is only four days after the interview and the negative decision that the applicant obtained a copy of his Higher Secondary School Certificate, which is dated June 27, 1997.
[12] In his application, the applicant seeks to introduce into the record evidence that was not before the visa officer when he rendered his decision. The purpose of the judicial review process is to examine the tribunal"s decision in light of the evidence adduced before it at the hearing and to decide whether or not there are grounds for review1.
[13] Even if this evidence were to be admitted, the applicant has not provided any evidence indicating that the Higher Secondary School Certificate obtained was a requirement or condition of admission to the trade certificate. In order to obtain 13 units, the applicant has the burden of proving that the Higher Secondary School Certificate was a condition of admission to the trade certificate.
[14] The applicant alleges that the visa officer did not address his concerns.
[15] The officer is not required to put before the applicant any tentative conclusions he may be drawing from the material before him, not even as to apparent contradictions that concern him. However, if he relies on extrinsic evidence, not brought forward by the applicant, he must give him a chance to respond to the evidence2.
[16] To succeed, the applicant must show that the visa officer erred in law, proceeded improperly or acted in bad faith.
[17] The visa officer acted on all of the evidence that was before him at the time of the interview on which he based his decision.
[18] In this instance, the evidence provided was that of the applicant. I find that in this instance, the applicant was given ample opportunity to respond to the visa officer"s concerns. Therefore, the applicant has not met the burden.
CONCLUSION
[19] The applicant has failed to show that the visa officer erred in the exercise of his functions or breached the rules of procedural fairness.
[20] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
____________________________
Associate Chief Justice
Ottawa, Ontario
July 6, 1998
__________________1 Asafov v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (18 May 1994) IMM-7525-93 (F.C.T.D.) Nadon J.
2 Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Shah (1995), 170 N.R. 238.