Golbaharan et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2002) 226 F.T.R. 40 (TD)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 19, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2002), 226 F.T.R. 40 (TD)

Golbaharan v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2002), 226 F.T.R. 40 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.020

Parvaneh Golbaharan and Parviz Khilaiee (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-3882-01; 2002 FCT 1219)

Indexed As: Golbaharan et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Dawson, J.

November 26, 2002.

Summary:

A husband and wife both applied as principal applicants for permanent residence in Canada. The visa officer was required to assess only one of them as principal applicant. The wife was convoked for an interview, following which her application was refused because she had received insufficient units of assessment. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - A husband and wife both applied as principal applicants for permanent residence in Canada - The visa officer was required to assess only one of them as principal applicant - The wife was convoked for an interview - Her application was refused - The applicants applied for judicial review - They asserted that the wife had asked the visa officer why her husband was not being interviewed, and the officer had replied that because the husband was a year older than the wife the officer did not believe his application would succeed - The applicants argued that the visa officer denied them procedural fairness by failing to assess the husband beyond the age factor - They relied on the principle that if a visa officer undertook a responsibility which was not legally required (assessment of the husband's application), procedural fairness required that the application be considered thoroughly and not summarily - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, rejected the argument - The visa officer did not begin or undertake an assessment of the husband's application.

Cases Noticed:

Rozario v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 187 F.T.R. 101 (T.D.), dist. [para. 3].

Counsel:

Max Chaudhary, for the applicants;

Michael Butterfield, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Max Chaudhary, North York, Ontario, for the applicants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on November 19, 2002, at Toronto, Ontario, before Dawson, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 26, 2002.