One Immigration Officer, Three Countries, Three Victories
How procedural fairness violations by the same visa officer led to three successful challenges
Every field has its notable figures, and Canadian immigration is no exception. One such figure is Thomas Richter.
Who Is Thomas Richter?
Thomas Richter is an immigration officer – one of hundreds who work in Canadian visa offices scattered around the world, reviewing applications of every kind: permanent residence, visitor visas, extensions of stay, criminal rehabilitation, and everything else that falls within the remit of the immigration authorities.
Although they are commonly called immigration officers, these are, of course, ordinary civilians – civil servants without uniforms or military rank. The title "officer" persists only because in English the word simply means a person holding an official position.
What makes Thomas Richter notable is, above all, his exceptionally harsh treatment of applicants whose files land on his desk. So harsh, in fact, that his refusals have frequently been issued in violation of fundamental principles known in Canadian legal practice as principles of procedural fairness.
We have never met Thomas Richter in person. We have never even spoken with him by phone – immigration officers at his level do not sit in call centres. And yet our acquaintance, though entirely indirect, has been remarkably close.
Ukraine: The First Encounter
Our first "meeting" with Richter took place many years ago, when he was posted as an immigration officer at the Canadian visa office in Kyiv.
A client from Ukraine needed our help after Richter issued a refusal on his immigration application on entirely baseless grounds – finding fault with aspects of the application that the law simply did not permit him to question.
The violations in the decision were so egregious that we were frankly taken aback. It was hard to believe that the immigration authorities of one of the world's leading countries could allow such errors.
But Canada is a leading country for good reason – justice can always be pursued, and in a great many cases, it prevails. A Federal Court application was prepared, setting out point by point what the law and regulations actually said, and what extraneous considerations Richter had relied upon in reaching his decision.
First encounter – first victory.
Singapore: The Asian Posting
For a while, we lost track of Richter. We heard of him again only several years later, when he had been transferred – with a promotion – to the Canadian visa office in Singapore, where he now held the title of Deputy Immigration Program Manager.
As is typical, the Singapore visa office handles applications not just from Singapore but from a number of Asian countries, including Bangladesh – an inexhaustible source of, if not immigrants, then at least people striving with all their might to emigrate.
During that period, a share of our clients were from Bangladesh, and refusals bearing a familiar signature were far from rare.
Here is just one example – an excerpt from one of our Federal Court applications, to which we again had to resort in order to help a client:
The refusal letter stated that the applicant had been informed of the officer's concerns and given an opportunity to address them. This statement is contrary to the facts, as the immigration officer did not communicate any concerns about the applicant's employment at Bangla Bank; the applicant learned of these concerns only from the refusal letter itself. The applicant was thus deprived of any opportunity to respond to the officer and rebut his doubts with arguments of his own.
As we can see, Richter had once again violated one of the principles of procedural fairness. This particular principle holds that when serious concerns arise that may lead to a refusal, the applicant must be given an opportunity to address those concerns by presenting arguments in their own defence.
Violations of this kind are very strong grounds for having a decision overturned.
The court indicated its readiness to hear the case, after which the immigration authorities offered to settle the matter before trial. The settlement was accepted.
There were many such cases – Richter was particularly aggressive with Bangladeshi applicants. In fairness, it should be acknowledged that not every one of his refusals was made in violation of procedural norms.
Warsaw: The European Posting
Several more years passed, and Thomas Richter resurfaced in Europe – this time at the Canadian visa office in Warsaw. His signature now carried an even more imposing title.
The situation we encountered this time was quite unusual. The applicant was applying for a study permit in Canada, but there was a complicating factor: a criminal record.
The applicant had done everything right – he came to us first for a legal opinion on how his criminal record would affect his ability to enter Canada. After studying the offence and the sentence, we concluded that the applicant could file for criminal rehabilitation, after which the Canadian immigration authorities would be obligated to recognise him as rehabilitated. At that point, the criminal record would pose no obstacle to entering Canada.
The rehabilitation application was prepared according to all the proper standards and submitted to the Warsaw visa office (which handles not only Poland but also neighbouring countries).
And it landed on the desk of none other than our old acquaintance, Thomas Richter – who wasted no time in delivering a truly astonishing move.
He reviewed the applicant's file and noticed that the applicant had previously applied for a study permit. In that earlier application, in response to the question "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?" – he had answered "No."
On this basis, Richter reopened the earlier application (which had long since been refused, though not because of the criminal record) and without hesitation issued a different decision – not merely a refusal, but a refusal with a ban on entering Canada. This penalty is reserved for those who provide knowingly false information in their applications – in this case, concealing a criminal record.
We had to demonstrate that the legal system does not permit an officer to return to a case on which a final decision has already been rendered and change that decision:
Reopening a case every time new evidence emerges after a final decision has been rendered is inconsistent with the principle of finality and does not serve the rational use of administrative resources. The doctrine of functus officio holds that an official who has once rendered a decision on a matter may not subsequently alter it, except to correct clerical errors or slips.
Warsaw's silence was long. Only after a full year did a brief response arrive: the client had been rehabilitated and was free to apply for visas and enter Canada without restriction. The verdict bore a more modest signature this time.
And now we once again have two clients with that same familiar autograph on their refusal letters. We will look into them, and if the refusals were once again issued in violation of the law, we will once again demand that they be overturned.
Lawpoint Immigration has years of experience challenging unfair visa refusals and procedural fairness violations before the Federal Court of Canada. If you have received a refusal that you believe was unjust, we can review your case and advise on the best path forward.