Lorne Waldman once told me that he was surprised that more counsel do not cross examine immigration officer's on their affidavits filed with the Federal Court. I do not believe that this is a common practice particularly in Alberta.
In this case, DoJ counsel had an affidavit from a senior manager from CPC Mississauga indicating that checks were done confirming that the person concerned has not accessed social assistance. The reason that they put this affidavit in was to counter my argument that my client (the victim of marriage fraud) has standing; that he was liable pursuant to the Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking.
Questioning does not have to be lengthy; in this case the examination took about ten minutes. The manager knew her stuff and was very credible. All I needed to get on the record really, was the answer (which I of course suspected) to this one question:
Q MR. SHARMA: Your affidavit does not preclude the possibility that Ms. XXXXXX has accessed Social Assistance somewhere else in Canada. Is that fair?
A I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question, please?
Q Your affidavit and the information contained in your affidavit and the checks that you've done do not preclude the possibility that Ms. XXXX has accessed Social Assistance somewhere, other than in Alberta, in Canada?
A That's correct.
I'm still awaiting transcripts of my examination of a CBSA manager from last week.
That examination was far more lengthy.
Comments