Date: 19990730
Docket: IMM-3969-97
BETWEEN:
VINODRAY BHANJI CHAVDA
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY J.:
[1] In October 1995, the applicant filed his application for permanent residence in Canada as an independent immigrant under the occupation of tool programmer.
[2] The applicant, 46, has lived in or near Ahmedabad, India for over twenty years. He is a citizen of India. His application for permanent residence was filed in London, England and subsequently transferred for processing to the Canadian High Commission in Colombo, Sri Lanka. From the outset, the applicant was represented by counsel.
[3] During the hearing in this judicial review proceeding, counsel for the applicant advised that this Court"s intervention was being sought on two grounds.
[4] The applicant"s first argument does not appear in his written materials. Counsel submitted that the visa officer"s difficulty in understanding the applicant"s English communications during the interview required an adjournment to allow one of the two parties to arrange for an interpreter. I do not agree.
[5] In his application form, the applicant noted that he spoke, read and wrote English fluently. The visa officer"s CAIPS notes, which were prepared in French, indicate that the applicant spoke English with difficulty and that it was "presqu"impossible de faire entrevue" ("almost impossible to conduct the interview").
[6] The interview took place on January 9, 1997. On January 16, 1997, the applicant wrote to the visa officer to submit an additional letter of reference. On March 14, 1997 and May 2, 1997, counsel for the applicant wrote to the High Commission in Colombo to determine the status of the application. An internal fax communication between departmental officials in late June 1997 indicates that counsel may have made a further oral inquiry seeking the status of the file. On July 3, 1997, the First Secretary in Colombo advised counsel in a letter that the final decision was still pending. At no time prior to the letter of decision of July 30, 1997, some seven months after the interview, did the applicant or anyone on his behalf complain that the interview was compromised by the absence of an interpreter.
[7] Counsel for the applicant was unable to present any case law in support of her argument. In my view, an applicant who claims to be fluent in English cannot expect the respondent"s officials to arrange for an interpreter. If this applicant was of the view that his ability to make himself understood by the visa officer was detrimentally affected by the absence of an interpreter, neither he or his counsel raised the issue prior to the hearing in this proceeding. The visa officer"s CAIPS notes that the interview was difficult because of the applicant"s weak English cannot be the basis of this Court"s intervention in the circumstances of this case.1
[8] The applicant"s second argument is twofold. The first aspect can be readily dismissed. The applicant submits that the visa officer failed to raise any concerns concerning his work experience. However, one week after the interview, the applicant filed a supplementary letter of reference which purportedly detailed his work experience as a tool programmer. The applicant"s transmittal letter states: "As per your direction at the time of my interview ... , I hereby enclose the fresh experience letter issued by the company where I am serving." On the basis of the CAIPS notes and the supplementary letter of reference, I am satisfied that the applicant understood the visa officer"s concerns with respect to his work experience. This conclusion is also supported, at least inferentially, by paragraphs 59 and 60 of the applicant"s first affidavit.
[9] In the end, the visa officer"s negative finding concerning the applicant"s work experience as a tool programmer was based on the credibility concerns he had with the letter of reference and the responses during the interview. There are substantial differences in the affidavit evidence of the visa officer and the applicant concerning their exchanges during the interview. Neither deponent was cross-examined. The applicant argues that the visa officer discounted the credibility of the various documents in support of his work experience for frivolous reasons.
[10] I have reviewed the tribunal record and have focussed on the CAIPS notes and the letters of reference. I have also carefully read the visa officer"s two affidavits and the three affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant. In my opinion, the applicant has not met his burden in establishing that the visa officer"s decision and his credibility finding were unreasonable.
[11] For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question. These reasons have been written in the language requested by the applicant"s counsel although the case was argued in the other official language.
"Allan Lutfy"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
July 30, 1999
__________________1 See Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1853 (QL) (T.D.) at paragraph 2 and Knarik v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1994) 79 F.T.R. 297 at paragraphs 2 and 4.