Zhoa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Zhoa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-12-05
Neutral citation
2012 FC 1421
File numbers
IMM-4927-12
Decision Content
Date: 20121205
Docket: IMM-4927-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1421
Vancouver, British Columbia, December 5, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
YUE LI ZHOA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Maintaining that the duty of candour is of paramount essence to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]; and acknowledging that without such candour, the objectives as set out in Section 3 of the IRPA risk failure.
[2] Understanding that the Canadian immigration authorities rely, first and foremost, on candour to ensure that their respective decisions reflect the health, family, security, social, economic and cultural fabric which Canada has set for itself through objectives as set out in legislative provisions of the IRPA, all of which are reflected in the Section 3 framework encompassing the Act.
[3] Responding to a judicial review application of the Applicant, the Court denies the judicial review due to inherently apparent significant credibility concerns and a lack of evidence to support the Applicant’s eligibility for the position of Financial Manager, an occupation listed as National Occupational Classification (NOC) 0111.
[4] This Court acknowledges the decision of Justice Marshall Rothstein in Lam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 152 FTR 316:
[4] … The onus is on an applicant to file a clear application together with such supporting documentation as he or she considers advisable. The onus does not shift to the visa officer and there is no entitlement to a personal interview if the application is ambiguous or supporting material is not included.
[5] Recognizing that the Applicant, herself, admits she made a “mistake”, it is this that gave rise to serious credibility concerns:
a. No adequate inclusion of a chronological work history for the last ten years;
b. Lack of credibility in respect of the accounting field as unrelated work had been submitted as being related.
[6] When assessing procedural fairness, the visa officer has no duty to question subsequently when an application is ambiguous and appears, on the face of the record itself, to miss adequate supporting documents.
[7] Having concluded, on the basis of the file, that the decision of the visa officer is reasonable as per Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190, this Court dismisses the judicial review application of the Applicant.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s application for judicial review be dismissed. No question of general importance for certification.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4927-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: YUE LI ZHAO v THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: December 4, 2012
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: SHORE J.
DATED: December 5, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Dean D. Pietrantonio
FOR THE APPLICANT
Marjan Double
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dean D. Pietrantonio
Barrister and Solicitor
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE APPLICANT
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver, British Columbia
FOR THE RESPONDENT