CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Exclusion and Removal
Inadmissible Persons
Judicial review of visa officer’s decision principal applicant, spouse inadmissible to Canada, therefore refusing application to immigrate to Canada, in case of principal applicant, as skilled worker—Basis of rejection principal applicant allegedly misrepresented material facts by presenting what purported to be original certificate from University of Bombay, original marks transcript from same University, determined, following verification, to be false—Applicants applying for permanent resident status at Visa Office at Canadian High Commission in London, England—In late‑filed affidavit, visa officer attesting, in review on date of interview of documentation presented in support of applicants’ application for landing, strongly suspected principal applicant’s university degree, mark sheets fraudulent— Principal applicant transmitting substantial new evidence of graduation from University of Bombay (by time obtained evidence, University of Mumbai)—Attesting “personally collected” true copy of degree from University of Mumbai on November 2, 2004—Determinative issues treatment of Visa Officer’s late‑filed affidavit, fairness—Applicants for landing in Canada having burden of establishing requirements for entry to Canada met—Foreign national inadmissible for misrepresentation for period of two years under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 40(2)(a)—Whether or not misrepresentation intentional irrelevant—Inadmissibility, inadmissibility for extended term having significant impacts for certain applicants—No basis on which to conclude visa officer’s conduct of interview with applicant not complete, satisfactory—However, visa officer delaying for significant period of time in issuing final decision—Late‑filed affidavit indicating conscious performing function at distance from office where applicants’ application for landing filed—Fact that supplementary material filed not recorded in CAIPS (Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System) notes— For that reason, visa officer failing to meet duty of fairness acknowledged by respondent to be upon him, by no fault of his own—In failing to enter into CAIPS notes in London fact that extensive supplementary material filed by applicants, respondent failed to provide visa officer with opportunity to fulfill obligations—Application allowed on basis duty of fairness incumbent on respondent in arriving at decision under review not fully met—Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 40.
Menon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM‑9641‑04, 2005 FC 1273, Gibson J., order dated 16/9/05, 11 pp.)