These notes are obviously valuable in the sense of record keeping. These notes routinely note whether a document of fax or an email was received from a lawyer on behalf of a client. E.g., this has been observed that some refusal are overturned in the past obtaining these notes because said notes have captured a relevant fact that was ignored by the immigration department(e.g. the immigration department said my client failed to provide a fax when in fact the notes recorded that th fax was received).
These notes ostensibly provide some accountability on the part of Canada's immigration department. However, they are nowhere near a perfect tool in this regard. E.g. a person who is interviewed by an officer will have a file created that discusses the goings on at that interview. However the notes are not a verbatim transcript, despite the fact that the federal court has discussed the advantages of having something akin to a transcript (e.g. an oral recording of the interview).
“It certainly would be preferable if these interviews were taped so that there was some objective way to assess contradictory descriptions such as those set out in the respective affidavits in this case.
Below is an example where the “he said-she said” allegations of an interview were resolved by the federal court by giving more weight to the officer's CAIPS notes.
“The court should attach greater weight to the visa officer's testimony about what took place during the interview, for the following reasons. First, it's corroborated by the notes she recopied into the CAIPS system, which makes absolutely no mention of problems communicating with the plaintiff, whereas there is nothing to support or confirm the plaintiff's allegation. Further, the officer's notes were re-transcribed into the CAIPS the day after interview with the plaintiff, namely march 21, 2001, when the events were fresh in her memory, and the plaintiff's affidavit, on the other hand, dates from august 31, 2001, over five months after the interview. Hence, the fact that CAIPS notes, which corroborate the officer's testimony, were contemporaneous is a sufficient reason to prefer her testimony to that of plaintiff.”
If one's immigration case has been handled well, these notes are similar to scoring 120 over 80 on you blood pressure check-just a routine sign of an ordinary case. If your immigration case has not been handled well (or if you fit a profile that the immigration authorities don't like), CAIPS notes are like a scar that never heals and will likely in your file for the rest of you life and beyond.
Plaintiff-------client
Ostensibly-> apparently
Corroborated->support->Agree with
Contemporaneous-> simultaneously
Thanks tor Mr. Max Chaudhry for giving such a valuable insight about CAIPS.
These notes ostensibly provide some accountability on the part of Canada's immigration department. However, they are nowhere near a perfect tool in this regard. E.g. a person who is interviewed by an officer will have a file created that discusses the goings on at that interview. However the notes are not a verbatim transcript, despite the fact that the federal court has discussed the advantages of having something akin to a transcript (e.g. an oral recording of the interview).
“It certainly would be preferable if these interviews were taped so that there was some objective way to assess contradictory descriptions such as those set out in the respective affidavits in this case.
Below is an example where the “he said-she said” allegations of an interview were resolved by the federal court by giving more weight to the officer's CAIPS notes.
“The court should attach greater weight to the visa officer's testimony about what took place during the interview, for the following reasons. First, it's corroborated by the notes she recopied into the CAIPS system, which makes absolutely no mention of problems communicating with the plaintiff, whereas there is nothing to support or confirm the plaintiff's allegation. Further, the officer's notes were re-transcribed into the CAIPS the day after interview with the plaintiff, namely march 21, 2001, when the events were fresh in her memory, and the plaintiff's affidavit, on the other hand, dates from august 31, 2001, over five months after the interview. Hence, the fact that CAIPS notes, which corroborate the officer's testimony, were contemporaneous is a sufficient reason to prefer her testimony to that of plaintiff.”
If one's immigration case has been handled well, these notes are similar to scoring 120 over 80 on you blood pressure check-just a routine sign of an ordinary case. If your immigration case has not been handled well (or if you fit a profile that the immigration authorities don't like), CAIPS notes are like a scar that never heals and will likely in your file for the rest of you life and beyond.
Plaintiff-------client
Ostensibly-> apparently
Corroborated->support->Agree with
Contemporaneous-> simultaneously
Thanks tor Mr. Max Chaudhry for giving such a valuable insight about CAIPS.
