IMM-2744-96
BETWEEN:
KHALED KHATTAB
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JEROME, A.C.J.:
This application for judicial review of a decision by a visa officer dated May 22, 1996, came on for hearing before me at Toronto, Ontario, on June 11, 1997. At the close of oral argument I took the matter under reserve and indicated that written reasons would follow.
The applicant is a citizen of Egypt who applied for permanent residence in Canada as an independent immigrant. He indicated on his application form that he would seek employment in Canada as a Manufacturer's Representative in the electronics industry. He was called to an interview with a visa officer in Cairo on May 8, 1996, and answered a series of questions designed to determine his suitability for admission to Canada. By letter dated May 22, 1996, the visa officer informed the applicant that he had not been assessed enough points to qualify for immigration to Canada.
That determination, however, assessed the applicant's suitability as an appliance salesman, not the category which the applicant indicated on his application form. My review of the notes taken by the visa officer during the interview and of those prepared by the applicant afterwards does not indicate that the visa officer informed the applicant of her concern that he was not suited to consideration as a Manufacturer's Representative nor that she would be evaluating him as an applicance salesman.
In Alireza Azarpajooh v. The Minster of Citizenship and Immigration (March 25, 1997) (IMM-1648-96), Mr. Justice Teitelbaum reviewed a situation similar to that in the case at bar and wrote at page seven of his decision,
| the visa officer makes no mention that she directly put to the applicant her "determinat[ion] that the occupation which most closely matched his experience was that of Manager, Engineering (CCDO 1131 181)." The applicant alleges that at no point did he indicate to the visa officer that he wished to be employed as a Manager, Engineering. |
| The visa officer has a duty to reveal to the applicant what was in her mind so that the applicant could, if he desired, dispute the visa officer's finding and disabuse her of assumptions. [references omitted] |
The visa officer in the case at bar committed a similarly reviewable error because she did not inform the applicant that he was being evaluated according to a job description different from that which he indicated on his application form.
This application for judicial review is allowed. This matter will be sent to a different visa officer for redetermination in accordance with the law and these reasons. No order as to costs.
O T T A W A
October 24, 1997 "James A. Jerome" A.C.J.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-2744-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: KHALED KHATTAB v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
APPEARANCES
Mr. Peter Johnson FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. David Tyndale FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Rekai and Johnson FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto, Ontario
Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE DATED: October 24, 1997