The applicant cites Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) et al.5 to support an argument that visa officers have a duty to provide adequate reasons for refusals, particularly when assessing experience. In that case, Jerome A.C.J. (as he then was) said6: In my view, the issue in Hajariwala was whether experience in particular responsibilities of an intended occupation could be separated and allocated to an applicant's alternative intended occupations. The reference by Jerome A.C.J. concerns providing reasons for the assignment of that experience to alternative occupations, rather than providing reasons for refusal generally. With respect, I am not persuaded there is a duty to set out detailed reasons for a refusal, or for the assessment assigned to any factor, including experience. In his letter of refusal in November 1997, the visa officer advised that he had determined she had "zero experience" in her stated intended occupation. In his affidavit, he states that as a result of the interview he was not convinced she had a minimum of one year cumulative experience in either of the two job classifications raised at the interview, and further, that at the interview he did explain the reasons for refusals in both occupations.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.