INTERVIEWS IN INDIA

The applicant had applied for consideration as a Sociologist

(CCDO 2313-114).

"I the undersigned, (Name of applicant), domiciled in the Republic of India and residing therein at (Address), New Delhi, do solemnly depose THAT:

1. I am the applicant referred to in these proceedings.

2. In February 1996, I filed an application for Canadian permanent residence with the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, India.

3. On Tuesday February 18, 1997 I attended an interview at the Office of the Canadian High Commission, 7/8 Shantipath, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, for the purposes of receiving an assessment pursuant to my application for Canadian permanent residence.

4. On Monday June 2, 1997, I received a letter from the Canadian High Commission dated May 8, 1997, refusing my application for permanent residence in Canada.

5. My application for residence was submitted under the Independent category and requested consideration as a Sociologist (CCDO 2313-114), a discipline in which I have extensive experience as an educational sociologist.

6. At the commencement of my selection interview, the officer (Mrs. Bhandari), first questioned me on my knowledge of the definition of sociology.

7. Thereafter I was questioned on a number of issues including without limitation: whether I have a degree in sociology; how I consider myself a sociologist; whether I have any field experience; how I collect and manage data and related information; the amount and location of my settlement funding; my future intentions in Canada; my family composition; my contacts in Canada.

8. On the issue of my educational qualifications, I re-iterated to the officer the information contained in my application for permanent residence and supported by the documentation submitted, namely, that I have four university degrees including a Master of Arts in Sociology which I obtained in 1984 from Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi, and a Master of Arts in Education which I acquired in 1988 from the said university.

9. I also clarified that concurrently with my professional fieldwork, I am completing my Ph.D. in Sociology at the Delhi University.

10. On the issue of my field experience I explained to the interviewing officer that during the period 1 July 1990 - 30 June 1991, I was gainfully employed as a Research Assistant in India for the Society for Promotion, Analyses & Research in Traditional Arts. While employed with this organization I conducted extensive sociological research on the historical development of Indian Classical Dances and its impact on the social structure of villagers in rural India.

11. Shortly after being questioned on my contacts in Canada, another officer (Y.D. Malhotra) entered the interview room wherein he proceeded to ask me certain questions such as whether I was married; why I want to emigrate to Canada; my perception on corruption in Canada.

12. Thereafter Mr. Malhotra questioned me on my research experience.

13. I explained to both officers the nature of my research experience as a research assistant with M/S Society for Promotion, Analyses & Reseach in Traditional Arts during the period 1 July 1990 until 30 June 1991.

14. At that point Mr. Malhotra conveyed to me the following statement: "well lady, I am afraid that since you have applied as a sociologist, you are not qualified since you do not have any direct experience in the field".

15. Only after I humbly suggested to Mr. Malhotra that I am a professional degree holder which qualifies me in India and in Canada to carry out the functions of a Sociologist >and that I do possess suitable and relevant field experience, did he proceed to briefly and partially question me on certain additional aspects of my employment profile as listed on the application form.

16. One such question related to my current experience at the National Open School, to which I outlined to both officers present my functions with the organization as a project assistant.

17. After I explained to the officers present about my current experience with the National Open School Mr. Malhotra stated: "Anyway in my opinion whatever experience she had is part of her Ph.D. program, so professional experience is not there".

18. Then Mrs. Bhandari stated: ?The only experience, which she has, is of the last job, which she gave just now?.

19. Thereafter a dialogue ensued between the two officers present on the issue of whether I could obtain an employment position in Canada as a sales girl or a waitress, with Mr. Malhotra concluding that with my background I would unlikely be able to locate such a position.

20. There was not one single question raised during the interview regarding my employment experience with the National Council of Educational Research of Training notwithstanding that this information was fully outlined in my application for residence and the covering submission letter accompanying my application, prepared by my attorney.

21. My full time employment experience with the National Council of Educational Research & Training also involved an extensive sociological field study funded by the World Bank and UNICEF designed to assess the primary educational system within rural towns and villages in India.

22. In this regard, during the period from July 1991 - May 1993 I conducted research into the socioeconomic profiles of families, children, school infrastructures and the background/competencies of teachers. I also conducted analysis by reviewing data and I wrote an extensive report/recommendation to improve the primary educational school system in rural India.

23. Immediately following my selection interview, it was clear to me that the interviewing immigration officers conducting my interview had not fully questioned me on all aspects of my employment background as they had mistakenly concluded that the information presented on my application was either not relevant to my functions as a sociologist or was not to be considered as it was acquired while completing my graduate doctoral degree.

24. I therefore proceeded to draft a letter of explanation addressed to the High Commission and dated 20 February 1997, wherein I attempted to elaborate further on all aspects of my employment profile which the officers had prevented me from addressing at interview.

25. It is inconceivable that an individual with my current and prior education and employment experience in India would not be assessed as a sociologist in any jurisdiction of reference.

26. I verily believe that the process of assessment, which took place in my application, is a reflection of a profound lack of understanding of this particular discipline on the part of the interviewing officers.

27. I verily believe that had I been given the chance to go through each and every one of my experiences referenced on my application, without interruption, and or premature conclusions drawn by the interviewing officers, as was the precise case in my interview, I am confident that the assessment of my credentials as a sociologist would have been positive.

28. Had I been allowed the opportunity to elaborate on the information presented in my application forms to the interviewing officers, I am confident that the assessment of my credentials as a sociologist would have been positive.

I SOLEMNLY DECLARE THAT THE INFORMATION I HAVE GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUTHFUL, COMPLETE AND CORRECT, AND I MAKE THIS SOLEMN DECLARATION CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVING IT TO BE TRUE AND KNOWING IT IS OF THE SAME FORCE AND EFFECT AS IF MADE UNDER OATH.

AND I HAVE SIGNED IN NEW DELHI, THIS DAY OF JUNE 1997.