Where an applicant submits a complete application, but an immigration officer nonetheless has concerns regarding the merits of it, the immigration officer will often provide a fairness letter to the applicant. This requirement has arisen from Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence which provides that the duty of procedural fairness can require that an applicant be given an opportunity to respond to a decision maker’s concerns when those concerns go beyond simply whether the legislation or related requirements are met on the face of the application. When, for example, the applicant may be unaware of the existence or the basis of the concern, procedural fairness may require prior notice of the concern before a decision is made so that the applicant has an opportunity to try to disabuse the officer of the concern. As the Court noted in Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 809, this is the case for both temporary and permanent residency applications. In Asanova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1173, the Court stated: Even so, at a minimum procedural fairness requires that an applicant for a visa have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the application process. Consequently, the duty of procedural fairness can require … Read More
Procedural Fairness Where Credibility is an Issue
In an application to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC“) the burden is on the applicant to put forward a complete, convincing and unambiguous application which provides sufficient evidence to establish that the requirements of Canadian immigration legislation are met. Visa officers are not under an obligation to ask for additional information where the submitted material is insufficient. As well, as demonstrated by the decision in Omitogun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 719, visa officers are under no obligation to review an applicant’s previously submitted applications. However, where there is a concern regarding the credibility or the genuineness of the evidence submitted, as opposed to the sufficiency of, or weight to be given, to that information, then the duty of fairness generally requires that the applicant be given the opportunity to address the concern. The Federal Court succintently set out the test in Fard v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1403, writing: Where an officer suggests that the applicant’s supporting documents serve a “demonstrative purpose” amounting to a “deceptive façade” (Taeb v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2023 FC 576 at para 6) or where, as here, the officer states that the applicant’s financial data has been “inflated” … Read More
Asking the Embassy to Re-Consider an Application
Once a decision has been rendered in relation to an application for a humanitarian and compassionate exemption, is the ability of the decision-maker to reopen or reconsider the application on the basis of further evidence provided by an applicant limited by the doctrine of functus officio?
Extrinsic Evidence
Where immigration officers have extrinsic evidence particular to an applicant, and that applicant is unaware that the immigration officer has that evidence, then procedural fairness requires that immigration officers disclose this evidence to the applicant.
When Procedural Fairness Requires a Fairness Letter
One of the most complicated topics in immigration law is determining when procedural fairness will require an immigration officer who is assessing an application to seek clarification in the form of a fairness letter or interview. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) the the concept of procedural fairness is eminently variable and its content is to be decided in the specific context of each case. When a visa officer does not rely on third party extrinsic evidence to make a decision it can often appear unclear when exactly it is necessary for an officer to afford an applicant an interview or a right to respond to the officer’s concerns. However, there will be a right to respond under certain circumstances. Requirement to Provide Complete Applications Visa officers do not have any legal responsibility to advise applicants of incomplete or inadequate applications. In Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 758, for example, the Federal Court dismissed a judicial review application of a visa officer’s refusal of an applicant under the Federal Skilled Worker Program. A visa officer determined that the application was deficient as it failed to include required information regarding … Read More
Showing that the Visa Officer or IRB Member or CBSA Officer Was Biased
Many individuals think that either a visa officer, a Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) officer or an Immigration and Refugee Board member is biased against them. This is not an argument to make lightly. Test for Bias In Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., 1976 2 (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 369, the Supreme Court of Canada held that in order for an individual to demonstrate that a government decision maker is biased, then: the apprehension of bias must be a reasonable one, held by reasonable and right minded persons, applying themselves to the question and obtaining thereon the required information. [T]hat test is “what would an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically — and having thought the matter through — conclude. Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly. As well, the Supreme Court of Canada has also noted that: Regardless of the precise words used to describe the test, the object of the different formulations is to emphasize that the threshold for a finding of real or perceived bias is high. It is a finding that must be carefully considered since … Read More
Canadian Immigration Embassy Interview Strategies and Tips
When visa officers have concerns regarding a completed application, they often convoke interviews. The interview provides the applicants to address these concerns. In this post I hope to convey to applicants the basic procedural fairness rules that they can expect.
The Right to Counsel at the Port of Entry
Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that: 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and In the immigration context, the right to counsel does not arise at most secondary examinations, unless the person is actually arrested or retained. As such, the Canada Border Services Agency’s (“CBSA“) general policy is not to permit counsel at examination if detention has not occurred. In practice, officers will often waive this policy if they are satisfied that legal representatives will not interfere with the examination process.
The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations
The doctrine of legitimate expectations is a procedural doctrine which has its source in the common law. Because the doctrine of legitimate expectations is a common law principle, it does not create substantive rights.
Procedural Fairness Owed by Provincial Nomination Programs to “Fraudulent” Consultants
The Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench (the “Court“) in Kaberwal v. Saskatchewan (Economy), 2013 SKQB 244 has released a decision clarifying the procedural fairness owed by provincial nomination programs to immigration representatives accused of fraud. To the best of my knowledge, it is the first decision on this issue. The Facts of the Case On December 31, 2012, Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Economy, Immigration Services (the “Ministry“) suspended an immigration consultant’s (the “Consultant“) right to submit applications to the Saskatchewan Immigration Nominee Program (“SINP“) for a period of two years. SINP officials accused the Consultant of fabricating job offers for employers who informed SINP that they never saw or signed the job offers that the Consultant submitted to SINP without their knowledge. The Ministry sent the Consultant a letter which, amongst other things, stated the following: We have reviewed seven job offers from Saskarc Industries that you submitted on behalf of seven applicants that have you listed as the third party representative. Part of the review of the application includes verifying the validity of the documents and information included in the application. As a representative, you have signed and agreed to the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP)’s Code of Conduct for Representatives which states that … Read More
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2