Digests

Haljiti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-1916-00

2001 FCT 287, Dawson J.

3/4/01

10 pp.

Judicial review of visa officer's refusal of application for permanent residence as self-supporting Convention refugee seeking resettlement--After advising application incomplete, visa officer requesting proof of funds from financial institution--Applicant providing statutory declaration in possession of 40,000 DM--Application rejected on ground incomplete as no proof of funds from financial institution as stipulated in request--Indicated as not complying with Immigration Act, s. 9(3), within inadmissible class of persons described in s. 19(2)(d)--S. 9(3) requiring every person to produce such documentation as required by visa officer for purpose of establishing admission not contrary to Act, regulations--S. 19(2)(d) prohibiting admission of persons not fulfilling any of conditions or requirements of Act--Kang v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1981] 2 F.C. 807 (C.A.) holding person not becoming inadmissible s. 19(2)(d) for sole reason violated prescription of Act, regulations--Application not rejected because applicant failed to establish existence of sufficient financial resources, but because failed to provide proof of funds in precise manner stipulated by visa officer--Person providing evidence of sufficient financial resources in form other than that requested by visa officer not automatically becoming member of inadmissible class of persons--Failure to provide proof in required form may justify decision to refuse to grant visa, but not having automatic effect of making person inadmissible as visa officer concluded--In so concluding visa officer erred in law--Application allowed--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 9(3), 19(2)(d).