Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

    



Date: 20000523


Docket: IMM-2718-99


Between:

     MOHAMMAD TALIB

     Applicant


     - and -




     THE MINISTER OF

     CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent



     REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY A.C.J.

[1]      The duration of the twenty-minute interview between the applicant and the visa officer does not constitute, in the particular circumstances of this file, any breach of procedural fairness. Similarly, there is nothing in the evidence, including the CAIPS notes which I have reviewed carefully, to support the applicant"s submission that the visa officer did not approach the interview with an open mind.

[2]      Furthermore, the applicant has failed to establish any error in the visa officer"s conclusion that he had not performed the functions of his intended occupation as a financial manager (N.O.C. 0111). The characterization of his working career as that of a bookkeeper is, on the record before me, free from any reviewable error.

[3]      The visa officer"s affidavit evidence, particularly at paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, attributes statements to the applicant which are consistent with bookkeeping functions. According to the visa officer, the applicant was unable to describe how he performed the functions of a financial manager. He could not explain the planning and set up of accounting or financial systems. He admitted to having no knowledge of computerized accounting or financial systems. He could not discuss internal control procedures. He described his new responsibilities as financial manager in terms of "...doing the boss"s personal books". When asked to describe auditing functions, he stated that he took inventory in the franchise store before the auditors would perform their audit. The visa officer was not cross-examined on these assertions.

[4]      On the evidence in this proceeding, I would be hard pressed to conclude that there was even an arguable case for judicial review.

[5]      For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.

     "Allan Lutfy"


     A.C.J.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                         Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                                                

COURT NO:                          IMM-2718-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      MOHAMMAD TALIB

     Applicant

                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:                  TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY              LUTFY A.C.J.
DATED:                          TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2000
APPEARANCES BY:                  Mr. M. Max Chaudhary

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Negar Hashemi

                            

                                 For the Respondent

                                            

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Chaudhary Law Office

                             Barristers and Solicitors

                             255 Duncan Mill Road

                             Suite 405

                             North York, Ontario

                             M3B 3H9                     

                                 For the Applicant

                             Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 20000523

                        

         Docket: IMM-2718-99

                             Between:

                             MOHAMMAD TALIB

                            

Applicant


                             - and -

             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION

                            

     Respondent

                            

    


                                            

                            

        

                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                        

                             A.C.J.

 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.