PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS OVERVIEW

Procedural fairness is the opportunity for the visa officer to give the applicant an explanation, so that the applicant can dispel the concerns of the visa officer. However, it is not in any case that the visa officer needs to give the applicant an opportunity to explain. The information that is directly reflected in the materials used by the visa officer is refused. For example, if the applicant for the federal skilled immigrants finds that the score is not enough 67 and refuses to sign, there is no need to give any explanation. This page describes several common situations where a visa officer is required to explain the opportunity to the applicant.

Refusal of applicants on a rational and general basis

To put it simply, the visa officer can’t open a “map cannon”, a chance to overturn a group of people without explaining the opportunity to the applicant. This principle is more clearly stated in Hernandez Bonilla v. Canada, 2007 FC 20 and is also heavily quoted in later jurisprudence.
In this case, the applicant is a 16-year-old Colombian citizen who wants to go to Canada for four years of high school. The visa officer believes that applicants who go to Canada for a four-year book at the age of “formation” will cause the applicant to be out of touch with Colombian family, society, language, etc., and cannot adapt after returning, so because they do not believe that the applicant will finish studying in Canada. And refused to sign.
The judge approved the judicial review and the judge held that the visa officer had used a general reason to refuse the applicant. This general reason led all students who applied for 4 years of high school to be refused because they were automatically considered to be out of touch with their family and culture after returning home. Apparently any applicant who applied to study in Canada for four years will leave the country during this time. However, not all of them will not be able to integrate into the country after studying and then stay in Canada illegally. Therefore, before using this reason for refusal, the judge must give the applicant an opportunity to explain.

Information obtained by third-party channels

If the visa officer obtains information from a third party and refuses to sign the applicant based on this information, then the opportunity must be explained to the applicant.
Let’s take a look at the following textbook-style violation of procedure fairness. In the case of Wu v. Canada, 2013 FC 838, the visa officer called the applicant’s employer to ask for responsibilities, and then concluded that the applicant’s duties did not meet the NOC definition. The 1112 was thus refused. The judge’s opinion is as follows.

[15] Where an officer has access to information of which the applicant is unaware, the applicant should be given an opportunity to disabuse the officer of any concerns arising from that evidence. Neither the existence nor the content of this call were disclosed to the applicant Indeed, the officer’s letter misleadingly omits any mention of the call, giving the applicant the untrue impression her application had been determined individual based on the record she submitted. It was only upon the disclosure of the certified tribunal record in this proceeding that the applicant Learned of the existence of the call and the officer’s reliance upon it.

[16] Given that an applicant must decide whether to pursue the costly step of initiating an application for judicial review before gaining access to the certified tribunal record, I would appeal visa officers to be transparent with an applicant about the reasons for refusing an application.

[17] This is a textbook example of a violation of the duty of fairness. I need not decide the third issue. The application for judicial review is granted and the matter should be returned to Citizenship and Immigration Canada for redetermination.

Medical examination

Because the physical condition refuses to sign the applicant, the applicant must be given an opportunity to explain. This principle is not only because the visa officer has obtained information that the applicant does not know (the doctor’s opinion on the medical examination will only tell the immigration office, will not tell the applicant), but also because the Supreme Court is in Hilewitz v. Canada; De Jong v. Canada In the case of SCC 57 in 2005, it was determined that if the applicant refused to apply for a medical examination, it must consider whether the applicant has the ability and willingness to guarantee his or her physical condition. In practice, the visa officer should inform the applicant of the doctor’s opinion, the estimated cost of medical and social systems, and the reasonable cost of immigration law, and inform them that they may impose an excessive burden on Canada. Applicants can at least make efforts from the following two aspects:

1. Refuting the visa officer’s point of view and thinking that the price calculation is wrong.
2. Submission of materials demonstrates their ability and willingness to reduce government spending, thereby reducing the burden on health and public services in Canada to a reasonable extent.

Suspected applicant credit

If the visa officer does not trust the applicant, for example, if the applicant’s materials are suspected to be false, it is usually necessary to give an explanation.
The visa officer likes to use this refusal: “The bank certificate/work certificate is printed on a low-quality paper.” This reason appears in the refusal of approximately 1/4 of the refusal of the refusal of the transfer business. In fact, if the visa officer suspects that the applicant’s bank certificate/work certificate is false, the visa officer should give the applicant an opportunity to explain, otherwise it will violate the procedural fairness.
What kind of problem is “integrity problem” has different understandings in different cases. If you want to refuse the applicant according to the 40 “false statements” of the Immigration Law, it is obviously a matter of good faith. The consequences of refusing an applicant with this article are serious, with high evidence and procedural fairness requirements, and the opportunity to be explained to the applicant.
In the case of Ransanz v. Canada, 2015 FC 1109, the visa officer did not believe that the applicant would reside in the nominated Quebec and suspected that the applicant went to Quebec to find a house to find the school in response to the upcoming interview. The judge thought this It is doubtful that the applicant’s integrity should be given an opportunity to explain.
However, in the case of Kamchibekov v. Canada, 2011 FC 1411, the applicant was not so lucky. The applicant’s employer’s recommendation letter copied the immigration’s definition of NOC. The immigration office considered that the visa officer’s refusal decision was not to doubt the applicant’s integrity, but because the duty of copying the NOC was not sufficient for the visa officer to determine whether the applicant’s real work was What, the judge accepted this statement.

Deportation order

The issuance of deportation orders is more procedurally fair than the usual visa and immigration applications. This principle was established in the case of Cha v. Canada, 2006 FCA 126 of the Federal Court of Appeal. The details of issuing a deportation order to the fairness of the procedure are:

1. Provide a report of the immigration officer to the client,
2. Tell the parties about the concerns in the report, what happened, and the possible outcomes.
3. When the applicant is present, interview the applicant on the spot, video or telephone.
4. Opportunity to submit evidence and statements to the applicant.