Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
Between
Kulwant Kaur Gill, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
Kulwant Kaur Gill, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2015] F.C.J. No. 439
2015 FC 452
Docket: IMM-904-14
Federal Court
Winnipeg, Manitoba
O'Reilly J.
Heard: October 6, 2014.
Judgment: April 10, 2015.
Docket: IMM-904-14
Federal Court
Winnipeg, Manitoba
O'Reilly J.
Heard: October 6, 2014.
Judgment: April 10, 2015.
(14 paras.)
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
·
O'REILLY J.:--
I. Overview
1 Ms
Kulwant Kaur Gill applied for permanent residence as a skilled worker to the
Canadian High Commission in New Delhi. An officer at the High Commission found
that Ms Gill was inadmissible to Canada because she had misrepresented or
withheld material facts about her work experience.
2 Ms
Gill's application (her second) was submitted in 2007. Since then, there have
been dozens of contacts between her and officials at the High Commission. In
essence, officials have tried to verify Ms Gill's representations about her
qualifications and work experience as a seamstress or tailor. Ms Gill provided
substantial documentation, yet officials were not satisfied with her evidence.
3 Further,
given the concerns about Ms Gill's employment history, two officials attended
at the tailor shop where Ms Gill said she worked. They did not find her there.
Rather, the proprietor, Mr Bedi (her uncle), said that Ms Gill was unwell and
had gone to the doctor. One of the officials telephoned Ms Gill, who said she
was shopping for buttons. Ms Gill then telephoned Mr Bedi and told him that, if
asked, he should confirm to the Canadian officials that she was out shopping.
Mr Bedi asked Ms Gill if she had obtained her medicine. She said "What
medicine, uncle, I am in the market". The officials also questioned
persons who worked nearby. None of them recognized Ms Gill.
4 In
2013, an officer at the High Commission denied Ms Gill's application for
permanent residence, concluding that she had misrepresented or withheld
material facts relating to her employment that could have led to an error in
the administration of Canada's immigration laws. Accordingly, the officer found
that Ms Gill was inadmissible to Canada for a period of two years.
5 Ms
Gill argues that the officer's decision was unreasonable because the officer
failed to take account of evidence that would have answered any concerns about
her employment. In addition, she maintains that she was treated unfairly
because she was not given an adequate opportunity to address the officer's
concerns. In particular, she was not provided with all of the documents in the
officer's possession, including certain so-called "poison pen"
letters, sent by persons who alleged that Ms Gill's application was based on
fraudulent documents. She asks me to quash the officer's decision and order
another officer to reconsider her application.
6 In
my view, the officer's decision was not unreasonable as it was based on genuine
concerns about the evidence relating to Ms Gill's application. Further, I
cannot conclude that Ms Gill was treated unfairly. While she was not provided
all of the documentation relied on by the officer, she was informed, multiple
times, of the officer's concerns and given more than an adequate opportunity to
respond to those concerns. Accordingly, I have no basis for overturning the
officer's decision and must dismiss this application for judicial review.
II. Did the Officer render an unreasonable
decision or treat Ms Gill unfairly?
7 The
issues of unreasonableness and unfairness are related, so I will deal with them
together.
8 Ms
Gill argues that the officer's decision was unreasonable because the officer
appeared not to take account of evidence she supplied in response to the
officer's concerns. In addition, she maintains that the officer did not give
her sufficient opportunity to meet those concerns.
9 In
my view, the officer treated Ms Gill fairly and rendered a reasonable decision.
10 Ms
Gill received two letters setting out concerns arising from her application.
She responded to them with numerous documents, photos, test scores, and
affidavits. She also requested an in-person interview.
11 However,
Ms Gill's evidence did not address the main concerns about her application. For
example, she was unable to provide satisfactory proof that her trade
certificates were genuine. Most importantly, Ms Gill never disputed that she
had asked her employer "what medicine Uncle, I am in the market"
during Canadian officials' visit to her alleged workplace. Nor did she provide
a plausible explanation for her statement. On the evidence, I see no basis for
concluding that the officer failed to give appropriate weight to the
documentation Ms Gill provided or for finding that the officer's conclusion was
unreasonable. On the contrary, the record shows that all of the evidence Ms
Gill provided was duly considered.
12 Similarly,
on the issue of fairness, Ms Gill was made aware of the numerous concerns about
her application. She was entitled to receive notice of those concerns but not,
as she argues, to disclosure of all of the documents that gave rise to them (Li v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 155 FTR 102 at para 23; Talpur v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012
FC 25 at para 21; Fang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2014 FC 196 at para 19-20).
13 Accordingly,
I see no basis for concluding that the officer's decision was unreasonable. Nor
can I find that Ms Gill was treated unfairly.
III. Conclusion and Disposition
14 Ms
Gill was neither treated unfairly nor subjected to an unreasonable decision by
Canadian immigration officials. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for
judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general importance for me
to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of
general importance is stated.
O'REILLY J.
No comments:
Post a Comment