加拿大联邦法院有关移民法判例选摘（十二）_出国通途_生活空间

新浪首页 >生活空间 >出国通途 >新东方学校出国咨询处 > 新闻报道

加拿大联邦法院有关移民法判例选摘（十二）

http://www.sina.com.cn 2000年3月31日 20:29 新东方学校出国咨询处

　　Tam 诉加拿大公民暨移民部长

　　法官：Rouleau J.

　　日期：1996年9月16日

　　案号：IMM-3276-95

　　1996年9月16日Rouleau J.法官：在本案中，申请人请求推翻签证官对其移民申请拒签的决定。

　　香港的Tam先生29岁，是一家地毯厂的行政官员。这家地毯厂有25名职员，客户来自美国、日本、新加坡、韩国、中国台湾及沙特阿拉伯等地。申请人常去日本出差。加拿大驻香港领馆于1995年2月15日收到申请人的移民申请。

　　经过初审后，签证官请申请人于1995年4月29日来参加面试。在面试过程中，签证官就教育水平、资历、职业、经验、上进心及对加拿大的了解等方面对申请人做了提问。

　　在对申请人的适应能力进行评估时，签证官根据申请人的工作经历和海外差旅的经历判断申请人的机变能力、主动性、适应性及上进心。随后，签证官给申请人的适应能力打了5分，满分是10分。签证官在宣誓书中对给申请人的适应能力评估的解释如下：

　　"申请人自1986年毕业以来，一直在同一家公司任职，但目前的收入水平也只相当于一个秘书。虽然该公司的老板，即申请人的教父，已于1987年移民加拿大，但申请人的职位并没有变化。1992年，申请人去温哥华看望其教父，并居住了1个月。申请人看来满足于现状，他并未请求做公司的合伙人或另谋高就。虽然申请人学习日语，以便更好地服务于日本客户，这表明申请人有提高自身能力的愿望。除此之外。本案申请人所表现出的主观能动性，适应能力或上进心与一般的香港独立移民申请者相比，显得微乎其微。因此，我给申请人的适应能力打了5分，此项满分为10分。"

　　"The applicant had only worked for one company sinc e leaving school in 1986, but was still not earning mor e than a secretary. Although the owner of this company, his godfather, emigrated to Canada in 1987, the Applica nt's responsibilities had not changed. The Applicant vi sited his godfather in Vancouver for one month in 1992. The Applicant appeared content with his position, he ha d not asked for partnership in the company or looked fo r opportunities elsewhere. Although the Applicant has s hown some motivation by taking Japanese language course to better serve the company's Japanese customers, he ha d otherwise shown very little initiative, adaptability or motivation compared to the average Hong Kong indepen dent applicant. As a result, I awarded the Applicant fi ve units of assessment out of a possible ten for person al suitability."

　　1995年4月28日签证官在给申请人的信中说，他的移民申请被拒绝了。申请人的顾问认为答证官给予申请人个人适应能力的评分不合理，并请求重新评估。1995年10月20日，签证官写信给申请人的顾问，说申请人的全部得分已准确地反映出申请人能否成功地立足于加拿大的能力。

　　现在申请人请求法院推翻签证官的决定，理由是签证官没有对所有有关的情况进行考虑，而以不相关的因素作为依据做出拒签决定，同时，对申请人的申请的处理程序是不公正的。

　　签证官的决定中有两点使我得出结论：申请人的申请应胜诉，签证官有瑕疵的决定应被推翻。

　　首先，签证官显然从申请人只在一家公司工作过的经历中做出了否定性的推断。但我认为申请人工作经历的事实并不能佐证签证官的结论，即"申请人所表现出的主观能动性、适应能力或上进心显得微乎其微。"正如Gibson法官在Gu labbhai Parsottam Prajapati, (unreported, IMM-4927-95, 1995年11月2日)[reported as Prajapati诉加拿大公民暨移民部长（1995），31 I mm. L. R. (2d) 182 (Fed. T. D)]中所评论的："如果对于一个历经数年仅供职于同一个雇主，以取得职位的进级和业务的精深但并没有广泛的工作经验。对于这样的申请人给予否定的评估，似乎是不对的。"

　　"It would unfortunate if dedication to a particular employer resulting in progress through the ranks in emp loyment over a considerable number of years with the sa me employer and depth rather than breadth of experience were assessed negatively."

　　此外，在Muliadi诉加拿大就业及移民部长(1986)一案中，联邦上诉法院就此类性质案件中所应遵循的" 公平行事原则"做了以下评述：

　　在本案中，我认为申请人应该有一个机会，对于安大略省政府的否定性的审查结论，提出他的反驳的看法。因为，该审查报告是移民官拒绝申请人的申请的依据。'公平行事'的义务在本案中是适用的。在这个问题上，我采纳Parker勋爵在1967年的H. K. 案（英国判例）中所写的判词：

　　"移民官无论如何都必须给移民申请人一个机会，以便确定申请人是否符合法律上规定的要求。为此，移民官应该上申请人知道，他的直觉的印象是什么，让移民申请人可以对此作出反驳。这是一个公平行事的问题。在行政人员做出一个行政决定的时候，法律要求他不仅不能偏心，不能不考虑所有应该考虑的问题，而且要公平行事。"

　　In the circumstances, though he was not entitled to a full hearing, I think he should have had an opportuni ty of meeting the negative assessment by the provincial authorities before it was acted upon by the visa office r, for upon that assessment his application turned. The duty to act fairly extends to this kind of case. In thi s I would adopt the views expressed by Lord Parker G. J . In Re H. K. (An Infant), [1967]"This, as it seems to me, is a very different case, and I doubt whether it ca n be said that the immigration authorities are acting i n a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity as those terms are generally understood. But at the same time, I mysel f think that even if an immigration officer is not in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, he must at any rat e give the immigrant an opportunity of satisfying him o f the matters in the subsection, and for that purpose l et the immigrant know what him immediate impression is so that the immigrant can disabuse him. That is not, as I see it, a question of acting or being required to act judicially, but of being required to act fairly. Good a dministration and an honest or bona fide decision must, as it seems to me, require not merely impartiality, nor merely bringing one's mind to bear on the problem, but acting fairly; and to the limited extent that the circu mstances of any particular case allow, and within the l egislative framework under which the administrator is w orking, only to that limited extent do the so - called rules of natural justice apply, which in a case such as this is merely a duty to act fairly."

　　上述原则，在1970年的英国上诉法院的女王诉大不列颠彩票委员会一案中获得了该法院的全体法官的一致同意。我认为该原则也适用于本案。因此，如签证官对Tam先生只担任过一个职位的工作这一事实感到不满意，并且这一事实影响对申请人适应能力的评分，因而影响到签证官的决定的话，那么，根据Muliad一案所确认的"公平行事"原则要求，签证官必须将他认为不满意的地方告知申请人，并在做出决定之前给Tam先生一个机会，对此做出反应。

　　Accordingly, if the visa officer was troubled by th e fact that Mr. Tam had held only one position in his e mployment history had was influenced in his decision wi th respect to personal suitability by that fact, the du ty of fairness set out in Muliadi required him to advis e the applicant of his concerns and to provide Mr. Tam with an opportunity to respond before any decision was made.

　　据此，申请人的上诉被获准，签证官的决定被推翻。申请人的移民申请将被送回重新审理。

　　结果：申请人的申请胜诉。�

新浪首页 >生活空间 >出国通途 >新东方学校出国咨询处 > 新闻报道

网站简介 | 网站导航 | 广告服务 | 中文阅读 | 联系方式 | 招聘信息 | 帮助信息


			加拿大联邦法院有关移民法判例选摘（十二） http://www.sina.com.cn 2000年3月31日 20:29 新东方学校出国咨询处　　Tam 诉加拿大公民暨移民部长　　法官：Rouleau J. 　　日期：1996年9月16日　　案号：IMM-3276-95 　　1996年9月16日Rouleau J.法官：在本案中，申请人请求推翻签证官对其移民申请拒签的决定。　　香港的Tam先生29岁，是一家地毯厂的行政官员。这家地毯厂有25名职员，客户来自美国、日本、新加坡、韩国、中国台湾及沙特阿拉伯等地。申请人常去日本出差。加拿大驻香港领馆于1995年2月15日收到申请人的移民申请。　　经过初审后，签证官请申请人于1995年4月29日来参加面试。在面试过程中，签证官就教育水平、资历、职业、经验、上进心及对加拿大的了解等方面对申请人做了提问。　　在对申请人的适应能力进行评估时，签证官根据申请人的工作经历和海外差旅的经历判断申请人的机变能力、主动性、适应性及上进心。随后，签证官给申请人的适应能力打了5分，满分是10分。签证官在宣誓书中对给申请人的适应能力评估的解释如下：　　"申请人自1986年毕业以来，一直在同一家公司任职，但目前的收入水平也只相当于一个秘书。虽然该公司的老板，即申请人的教父，已于1987年移民加拿大，但申请人的职位并没有变化。1992年，申请人去温哥华看望其教父，并居住了1个月。申请人看来满足于现状，他并未请求做公司的合伙人或另谋高就。虽然申请人学习日语，以便更好地服务于日本客户，这表明申请人有提高自身能力的愿望。除此之外。本案申请人所表现出的主观能动性，适应能力或上进心与一般的香港独立移民申请者相比，显得微乎其微。因此，我给申请人的适应能力打了5分，此项满分为10分。" 　　"The applicant had only worked for one company sinc e leaving school in 1986, but was still not earning mor e than a secretary. Although the owner of this company, his godfather, emigrated to Canada in 1987, the Applica nt's responsibilities had not changed. The Applicant vi sited his godfather in Vancouver for one month in 1992. The Applicant appeared content with his position, he ha d not asked for partnership in the company or looked fo r opportunities elsewhere. Although the Applicant has s hown some motivation by taking Japanese language course to better serve the company's Japanese customers, he ha d otherwise shown very little initiative, adaptability or motivation compared to the average Hong Kong indepen dent applicant. As a result, I awarded the Applicant fi ve units of assessment out of a possible ten for person al suitability." 　　1995年4月28日签证官在给申请人的信中说，他的移民申请被拒绝了。申请人的顾问认为答证官给予申请人个人适应能力的评分不合理，并请求重新评估。1995年10月20日，签证官写信给申请人的顾问，说申请人的全部得分已准确地反映出申请人能否成功地立足于加拿大的能力。　　现在申请人请求法院推翻签证官的决定，理由是签证官没有对所有有关的情况进行考虑，而以不相关的因素作为依据做出拒签决定，同时，对申请人的申请的处理程序是不公正的。　　签证官的决定中有两点使我得出结论：申请人的申请应胜诉，签证官有瑕疵的决定应被推翻。　　首先，签证官显然从申请人只在一家公司工作过的经历中做出了否定性的推断。但我认为申请人工作经历的事实并不能佐证签证官的结论，即"申请人所表现出的主观能动性、适应能力或上进心显得微乎其微。"正如Gibson法官在Gu labbhai Parsottam Prajapati, (unreported, IMM-4927-95, 1995年11月2日)[reported as Prajapati诉加拿大公民暨移民部长（1995），31 I mm. L. R. (2d) 182 (Fed. T. D)]中所评论的："如果对于一个历经数年仅供职于同一个雇主，以取得职位的进级和业务的精深但并没有广泛的工作经验。对于这样的申请人给予否定的评估，似乎是不对的。" 　　"It would unfortunate if dedication to a particular employer resulting in progress through the ranks in emp loyment over a considerable number of years with the sa me employer and depth rather than breadth of experience were assessed negatively." 　　此外，在Muliadi诉加拿大就业及移民部长(1986)一案中，联邦上诉法院就此类性质案件中所应遵循的" 公平行事原则"做了以下评述：　　在本案中，我认为申请人应该有一个机会，对于安大略省政府的否定性的审查结论，提出他的反驳的看法。因为，该审查报告是移民官拒绝申请人的申请的依据。'公平行事'的义务在本案中是适用的。在这个问题上，我采纳Parker勋爵在1967年的H. K. 案（英国判例）中所写的判词：　　"移民官无论如何都必须给移民申请人一个机会，以便确定申请人是否符合法律上规定的要求。为此，移民官应该上申请人知道，他的直觉的印象是什么，让移民申请人可以对此作出反驳。这是一个公平行事的问题。在行政人员做出一个行政决定的时候，法律要求他不仅不能偏心，不能不考虑所有应该考虑的问题，而且要公平行事。" 　　In the circumstances, though he was not entitled to a full hearing, I think he should have had an opportuni ty of meeting the negative assessment by the provincial authorities before it was acted upon by the visa office r, for upon that assessment his application turned. The duty to act fairly extends to this kind of case. In thi s I would adopt the views expressed by Lord Parker G. J . In Re H. K. (An Infant), [1967]"This, as it seems to me, is a very different case, and I doubt whether it ca n be said that the immigration authorities are acting i n a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity as those terms are generally understood. But at the same time, I mysel f think that even if an immigration officer is not in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity, he must at any rat e give the immigrant an opportunity of satisfying him o f the matters in the subsection, and for that purpose l et the immigrant know what him immediate impression is so that the immigrant can disabuse him. That is not, as I see it, a question of acting or being required to act judicially, but of being required to act fairly. Good a dministration and an honest or bona fide decision must, as it seems to me, require not merely impartiality, nor merely bringing one's mind to bear on the problem, but acting fairly; and to the limited extent that the circu mstances of any particular case allow, and within the l egislative framework under which the administrator is w orking, only to that limited extent do the so - called rules of natural justice apply, which in a case such as this is merely a duty to act fairly." 　　上述原则，在1970年的英国上诉法院的女王诉大不列颠彩票委员会一案中获得了该法院的全体法官的一致同意。我认为该原则也适用于本案。因此，如签证官对Tam先生只担任过一个职位的工作这一事实感到不满意，并且这一事实影响对申请人适应能力的评分，因而影响到签证官的决定的话，那么，根据Muliad一案所确认的"公平行事"原则要求，签证官必须将他认为不满意的地方告知申请人，并在做出决定之前给Tam先生一个机会，对此做出反应。　　Accordingly, if the visa officer was troubled by th e fact that Mr. Tam had held only one position in his e mployment history had was influenced in his decision wi th respect to personal suitability by that fact, the du ty of fairness set out in Muliadi required him to advis e the applicant of his concerns and to provide Mr. Tam with an opportunity to respond before any decision was made. 　　据此，申请人的上诉被获准，签证官的决定被推翻。申请人的移民申请将被送回重新审理。　　结果：申请人的申请胜诉。�

新浪首页 >生活空间 >出国通途 >新东方学校出国咨询处 > 新闻报道