Date: 19980505
Docket: IMM-3098-97
BETWEEN:
AMRIT KAUR DHILLON
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[Delivered from the Bench at Calgary
on April 30, 1998, as edited]
ROTHSTEIN J.
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer which found that the applicant was inadmissible to Canada. The issue before the Court relates to the fact that the visa officer gave no units of assessment for experience to the applicant. The failure to award units of assessment for experience was fatal to the applicant's case.
[2] The applicant applied to immigrate as a domestic cook. There was evidence that the applicant had some cooking experience in an institutional framework. However, the visa officer formed the opinion that this experience was not relevant to experience as a domestic cook. That is the reason no units of assessment were awarded for experience.
[3] The applicant says that the visa officer had an obligation to interview the applicant or at least give the applicant an opportunity to clarify the evidence about her experience so that the applicant might then have convinced the visa officer that the experience she did have was relevant to the occupation of domestic cook. However, persons seeking to come into Canada have the burden of proving their application and must produce the relevant information which may assist that application. See for example: Harjariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 6 Imm.L.R. (2d) 222 at 227 (F.C.T.D.). A visa officer may offer assistance, counselling or advice or obtain clarification. However, there is no obligation that is imposed upon visa officers by law to do so. There was no duty on the visa officer to give the applicant a further opportunity to clarify or explain the evidence that had been submitted.
[4] I conclude that the visa officer did not err in not giving the applicant an opportunity for further clarification. The judicial review must be dismissed.
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
MAY 5, 1998