Cornea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Cornea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2003-08-12
Neutral citation
2003 FC 972
File numbers
IMM-2791-01
Decision Content
Date: 20030812
Docket: IMM-2791-01
Citation: 2003 FC 972
Ottawa, Ontario, this 12th day of August, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
NELA CORNEA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Nela Cornea, a citizen of Romania, applied to become a permanent resident of Canada on the strength of her skills as a chemical technician. She claimed to have considerable experience: a total of 17 years, with two different employers. A visa officer in Detroit evaluated her application, interviewed her and turned her down. Ms. Cornea argues that the officer made serious errors and, by way of this application for judicial review, asks me to order another visa officer to re-assess her application. I find that the officer made an error serious enough to justify granting Ms. Cornea's request.
[2] The visa officer denied the application because she doubted that Ms. Cornea had actually worked extensively as a chemical technician. She formed those doubts based on contradictory evidence in Ms. Cornea's file: references to having worked in a restaurant, as a secretary, and at a bank, all during the time she claimed to be working as a chemist.
[3] In a letter dated December 27, 2000, the visa officer informed Ms. Cornea that she had a "concern" about her employment history and asked for further evidence. The officer clearly intended the letter to re-iterate concerns that she had mentioned to Ms. Cornea during the interview, and to provide her an opportunity to respond to them.
[4] Two weeks later, Ms. Cornea supplied another letter from one of her former employers. The letter described Mr. Cornea's experience as a chemical technician specializing in rubber.
[5] Clearly, the visa officer was not satisfied with this letter. In her rejection letter dated May 1, 2001, the officer mentioned her concerns about Ms. Cornea's credibility and the reliability of her supporting documents. Ms. Cornea argues that she had not been adequately informed of these concerns and had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to them. In the circumstances, I cannot agree.
[6] Whether or not the officer specifically discussed her concerns at the interview (and there is some dispute about this in the evidence), she certainly mentioned them, in a general way, in her letter of December 27, 2000. She then gave Ms. Cornea a chance to respond. On this issue, I find that the visa officer treated Ms. Cornea fairly.
[7] However, the officer said something else in her letter of May 1, 2000. She said that she had advised Ms. Cornea of "the consequences of submitting a fraudulent document" in support of her application, and that she had allowed Ms. Cornea "time to provide further evidence to disabuse any concern". If the officer believed that Ms. Cornea's supporting documents were forgeries, she certainly did not record her suspicion in her notes. Further, in her letter of December 27, 2000, she mentions a general concern about Ms. Cornea's employment history, but she does not say anything that would alert Ms. Cornea to a suspicion of fraud.
[8] If an officer suspects that an applicant has supplied fraudulent documents, he or she must give the applicant a chance to address that concern. Otherwise, an officer might, in effect, accuse an applicant of committing a crime or, at the very least, engaging in seriously disreputable conduct, without knowing the full picture. The officer should, if possible, inform the applicant of his or her suspicion prior to the interview and give the applicant a proper opportunity to address it: Islam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1985 (QL) (T.D.); John v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 257, [2003] F.C.J. No. 350 (QL) (T.D.).
[9] Accordingly, I find that the officer erred by not informing Ms. Cornea of her suspicion that some documents in the file were fake, and by not giving her a chance to respond. I therefore grant Ms. Cornea's request to have her application re-considered by a different officer.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed.
2. Ms. Cornea's application shall be reconsidered by a different visa officer.
3. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2791-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: NELA CORNEA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HON. MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Marc Boissonneault
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Tamrat Gebeyehu
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Marc Boissonneault
Barrister and Solicitor
480 University Ave.
Suite 610
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1V2
FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT