新生代簽證移民事務所
中國大陸:4006226394
中國香港:(852) 9055-1080
北美:1 (888) 622-6394

程序公平系列文章(三):信息來源

  程序公平就是簽證官要給申請人一個解釋的機會,讓申請人打消簽證官的顧慮。然而,並不是在任何情況下,簽證官都需要給申請人一個解釋的機會。簽證官用用材料中直接體現出來的信息拒簽,比如給聯邦技術移民的申請人算分發現不夠67而拒簽,是不需要給任何解釋機會的。這個原則在Hassani v. Canada, 2006 FC 1283一案中得到總結。

…it is clear that where a concern arises directly from the requirements of the legislation or related regulations, a visa officer will not be under a duty to provide an opportunity for the applicant to address his or her concerns. Where however the issue is not one that arises in this context, such a duty may arise. This is often the case where the credibility, accuracy or genuine nature of information submitted by the applicant in support of their application is the basis of the visa officer’s concern…

  而需要給解釋機會最常見的三種情況有(1)簽證官用模式化和概括性的理由拒簽申請人,(2)簽證官從申請人不知道的第三方渠道獲取了信息拒簽和(3)簽證官懷疑申請人的信用而拒簽。

模式化和概括性理由

  簡單地說,簽證官不能開“地圖炮”,一竿子打翻一群人,卻又不給申請人解釋的機會。這個原則在Hernandez Bonilla v. Canada, 2007 FC 20說的比較清楚,也被後來的判例大量引用。
  在這個案子中,申請人Luz Marina Hernandez Bonilla是16歲的哥倫比亞公民,想去加拿大讀4年高中。簽證官認為,申請人在“形成性格”的年齡去加拿大讀4年書,會導致申請人和哥倫比亞家庭、社會、語言等脫節,回國之後無法適應,所以因為不相信申請人會學完離開加拿大而拒簽。
  法官批准了司法複核,主要觀點如下:

[26] 我認為在本案中,簽證官用了一個概括性的理由拒簽了申請人。這個概括性的理由導致所有申請讀4年高中的學生都應該被拒簽,因為他們被自動考慮回國後與家庭、文化脫節了。顯然任何申請去加拿大讀4年高中的申請人都會在這段時間離開祖國,然而並不是所有這些人學完之後就無法融入祖國進而非法留在加拿大。
[26] It is my opinion that the visa officer relied upon a generalization when he refused the applicant’s application. The generalization in question is that all applicants who apply for study permits which cover four years of high school should be denied, since they would automatically be unlikely to return to their home countries due to long-term separation from their families and cultures. Clearly, any individual who applies to study in Canada for four years of high school would be away from the aspects of their home country noted by the visa officer. However, it is not necessarily the case that all young people in these circumstances would become unable to function in their home countries following a four year period of study in Canada, and as a result, would be unlikely to leave Canada.

[27] 在這個案子中,申請人並沒有遞交不完整的申請,而是簽證官主觀臆斷申請人在完成學習之後不會回到哥倫比亞。在我看來,簽證官在此情況下應當給予申請人一個回應的機會。申請人無法知道簽證官認為在她在“形成性格的時期”來加拿大學習長達4年之久會導致她最終非法滯留。簽證官未能給申請人一個解釋的機會,在本案的事實中,構成了違反程序公平。因此我批准本次司法複核,申請人的簽證會返回給另外一名簽證官重新審理。
[27] This is not a case in which the applicant’s application itself was incomplete, but a situation where the officer subjectively formed an opinion that the applicant would not return to Colombia following the completion of her studies. In my view, the officer in this situation should have allowed the applicant an opportunity to respond to his concerns. The applicant had no way of knowing that the visa officer would act upon his view that those in their “formative years” may not study in Canada for a four year period, since they would be unlikely to leave the country. The visa officer’s failure to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to his concerns, on the facts of this case, amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice. The application for judicial review is therefore allowed and the matter is referred to a different visa officer for redetermination.

  這個案子是很多在中國被拒簽的申請人上訴時候用於駁倒移民局的靈丹妙藥。

第三方渠道獲取的信息

  如果簽證官從第三方獲得了信息,並且依據這個信息拒簽申請人,那麼是一定要給申請人一個解釋的機會的。這個原則被大量的法院判例引用和重申,並構成了程序公平的基石。
  我們來看看下面“教科書式的違反程序公平”,在Wu v. Canada, 2013 FC 838一案中,簽證官給申請人的僱主打電話詢問職責,然後得出申請人的職責不符合NOC定義的1112從而拒簽。法官的意見如下。

[15] 當簽證官獲取了申請人並不知情的信息,申請人必須要得到一個機會來打消簽證官從這個信息中產生的疑慮。然而這個通話的存在和通話的內容都沒有告訴給申請人。事實上,簽證官的信中特意誤導性地忽視了這次通話,給申請人造成了簽證官的決定僅僅是從申請人遞交的材料中作出的錯誤印象。直到最後移民局的所有文件都公布出來,申請人才知道了這次通話的存在,以及簽證官拒簽決定的依據。
[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 decided solely 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] 因為申請人必須要進行昂貴的司法複核才能獲取移民局的所有文件,我要鼓勵簽證官在披露拒簽決定的時候做到足夠透明。
[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 encourage visa officers to be transparent with an applicant about the reasons for refusing an application.

[17] 這是一次教科書式的違反程序公平的例子。我已經不需要考慮第三個問題(簽證官的決定是否合理)。這次司法複核的申請得到批准並且移民申請會被打回重新審理。
[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.

懷疑申請人信用

  如果簽證官不相信申請人,比如懷疑申請人的材料有假,通常需要給解釋機會。
  北京、上海和香港的簽證官非常喜歡用這一條拒簽:“銀行證明/工作證明的打印在質量很低的抬頭紙上”。這樣的理由出現在我們的拒簽調檔業務查出的大約1/4的拒簽結果中。
  如果簽證官懷疑申請人的銀行證明/工作證明有假,簽證官理應給申請人一個解釋的機會,否則違反了程序公平。
  什麼樣的問題是“誠信問題”,不同的法官有不同的理解。在Ransanz v. Canada, 2015 FC 1109一案中,簽證官不相信申請人會在提名的魁北克省居住,並且懷疑申請人去魁省找房子找學校的是為了應對即將到來的面試,法官認為這是在懷疑申請人的誠信,應該給予解釋機會。

[34] Finally, I find that a credibility issue was raised with respect to the suggestion by the respondent’s counsel that the research into real estate and schools in Montreal was only undertaken in anticipation of the in-person interview. If the Officer suspected that the applicant’s wife’s recent trip to Montreal had only taken place because the applicant was aware of his upcoming interview, as the respondent implies before this Court, the Officer should have raised this concern and given the applicant an opportunity to respond during the interview, as this issue directly went to the applicant’s credibility…

  但是在Kamchibekov v. Canada, 2011 FC 1411一案中,申請人就沒那麼幸運了。申請人的僱主推薦信照抄了移民局對NOC的定義,移民局認為簽證官的拒簽決定不是懷疑申請人的誠信,而是因為照抄NOC的職責不足以讓簽證官確定申請人真實的工作到底是什麼,法官居然採信了這種說法。而一旦被認定是申請人材料準備不足,就可以直接拒簽不給解釋機會了。

微信公眾號

微信號:ExpressEntry
客觀、準確、及時的移民資訊,不嘩眾取寵,不造謠傳謠。

鏈接

新生代官方網站
www.newgcanada.com

公司簡介,旗下品牌,服務理念

魁瓜之家
www.quebecpeq.com

最具價值的魁北克留學移民生活信息

Jie Han Consultante
jiehan.ca

韓潔律師

敬請期待

新生代律師事務所

在線聯繫

郵箱:info@newgcanada.com
客服QQ:410655655

服務電話

中國大陸:4006226394
中國香港:(852) 9055-1080
北美:1 (888) 622-6394

中國

北京
海淀區花園北路25號E園EPARK
上海
靜安區南京西路580號仲益大廈
香港 廣州 深圳 東莞
請和顧問預約在指定地點面談
武漢
江漢區建設大道518號招銀大廈
西安
雁塔區科技路195號世紀頤園

加拿大

多倫多
217-250 Consumers Rd
Toronto, Ontario, M2J 4V6
蒙特利爾
640-2000 Peel Rd
Montreal, QC H3A 2W5
溫哥華
800-525 West 8th Ave
Vancouver, BC V5Z 1C6
卡爾加里
2100-144 4 Ave SW
Calgary, AB T2P 3N4
溫尼伯
E-103 Scurfield Blvd
Winnipeg, MB R3Y 1M6

新生代所有辦公室均為直營。