Date: 19980924
Docket: IMM-4956-97
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD TAHIR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer, refusing the application for permanent residence of Mohammad Tahir.
[2] On April 29, 1997, the Regional Programs Centre of the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo received an Application for permanent residence from the Applicant which was returned because it did not contain the correct fee.
[3] A second application for permanent residence was submitted by the Applicant and was received in the Regional Programs Centre in Buffalo on or about June 2, 1997. This is the application which was considered and rejected by the visa officer.
[4] The Applicant applied under the skilled workers program as a "Diesel Mechanic" and requested that he be assessed under the CCDO number 8584-382.
[5] The Applicant claims to have been employed as a diesel mechanic, both in Pakistan and in New York since 1987. However, no documentation was submitted to support this claim.
[6] Based on the lack of supporting documentation for the occupation of diesel mechanic, the Applicant was assessed under the more general occupation of "Motor Vehicle Mechanic." As a result, the visa officer awarded the Applicant 49 units of assessment and the Applicant"s application for permanent residence was refused pursuant to s. 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act1 (the Act).
[7] Subsection 8(1) of the Act states that:
| 8.(1) Where a person seeks to come into Canada, the burden of proving that that person has a right to come into Canada or that his admission would not be contrary to this Act or the regulations rests on that person. |
8. (1) Il incombe à quiconque cherche à entrer au Canada de prouver qu'il en a le droit ou que le fait d'y être admis ne contreviendrait pas à la présente loi ni à ses règlements. |
[8] The applicant submits that when an application is deficient, the visa officer has a duty to request supporting documentation or to grant an interview in order to substantiate the application. I do not agree. The onus is on the Applicant to file an application together with any relevant supporting documentation. There is no duty for the visa officer to try to bolster an incomplete application. Obviously, the visa officer may make inquiries, when warranted, but, where the applicant simply provides a job title and does not even care enough to provide any of the available supporting material, I find it offensive to suggest that the burden is shifted and that the visa officer should have done more than she did.
[9] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA (ONTARIO)
September 24, 1998.
__________________