Date: 19980722
Docket: IMM-4873-97
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED AMJAD ALI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J :
[1] This application for judicial review attacks the decision of a visa officer dated September 29, 1997, in which she awarded the applicant 67 units of assessment and determined that he was not eligible for a permanent residence visa. A minimum of 70 units is required pursuant to subparagraph 9(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Regulations, 19781.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of India who has been residing in the United States since 1996, applied for permanent residence in Canada in the occupation of executive secretary. He claims that the visa officer erred in her assessment under the following three factors: (a) education, (b) language and (c) personal suitability.
(a) Education
[3] The applicant submits that he obtained a Bachelor of Commerce degree from Kakatiya University in India and, as a result, should have been awarded 15 units for the education factor. However, in the course of the interview, he informed the visa officer that the university was actually a "college", and that he only attended part-time because he was working full-time as an instructor at a typing institute. Paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule I of the Regulations stipulates "a first-level university degree that requires at least three years of full-time study". Consequently, it cannot be said that the visa officer erred. She properly granted 13 units for that factor, in accordance with subparagraph 1(1)(c)(ii) of Schedule I.
(b) Language
[4] The visa officer awarded the applicant 6 units of assessment for his English language ability instead of 9 although he had marked "fluent" in reading, speaking and writing English on his application form. In her affidavit, the visa officer states several times that the applicant spoke English in a "garbled" manner that was "difficult to understand" and at times "unintelligible" and "fragmented". The visa officer's CAIPS notes, taken at the time of the interview, support these statements. Of course, the applicant himself claims that he was fluent but the visa officer noted that he could barely make himself understood in English and that she had to repeat questions in simple English several times so that he would understand her. She indicated that her assessment of his ability to read, write and speak the English language was based on the written material that he provided with his application and also his ability to understand and communicate during the interview.
[5] The visa officer is in a much better position than the Court to assess the quality of the language of an applicant and, in the absence of any bad faith on the part of the visa officer, the Court must treat her decision with all due deference.
(c) Personal suitability
[6] The assessment of personal suitability is entirely within a visa officer's scope of expertise and should not be interfered with unless the finding is perverse or capricious, or unless the visa officer committed an error of law. "Double-counting" on the part of the visa officer would be an error of law. In other words, specific factors such as education, language, occupational demand or any of the other five factors outlined in Schedule I already assessed separately cannot be "double-counted" when assessing an applicant's personal suitability2. Such factors may be considered under personal suitability only insofar as they elucidate the applicant's adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and similar qualities. For example, an applicant who resides in an English-speaking country for several years without learning the language demonstrates less adaptability on his part. A visa officer makes no error in considering the separate factors from this perspective3.
[7] The visa officer awarded the applicant 4 out of 10 units of assessment for personal suitability. The applicant suggests that he deserved at least 5 units of assessment because that is the "average" assessment, according to his solicitor. However, there is no evidence that the visa officer considered this applicant to be average.
[8] In her affidavit, the visa officer detailed her assessment of the applicant's personal suitability. She states that she considered the applicant's education and work history as well as the fact that he had little knowledge of Canada, even though he had been in Michigan for two years, where he had access to Canadian television and radio.
[9] I am of the view that the visa officer did not "double-count" those factors, but rather considered them from the perspective of the applicant's ability to adapt to life in Canada, seek out and obtain employment, and become established. The personal suitability factor in Schedule I is defined as the suitability of an applicant to become successfully established in Canada based on his adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and other similar qualities. Clearly, the fact that the applicant did not have a steady work history, did not become fluent in English after two years in the United States, and demonstrated very little knowledge of Canada, are worthy of consideration in determining his personal suitability.
[10] Consequently, it cannot be found that the visa officer erred in law or was unreasonable in her appreciation of the facts. Thus, the application is denied.
[11] I agree with counsel for both parties that there is no question of general importance to be certified.
O T T A W A, Ontario
July 22, 1998
Judge
__________________1 SOR/78-172.
2 Zeng v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 167 (F.C.A.).
3 Ajmal v. Canada (M.C.I.), April 17, 1998, IMM-2399-97, Pinard J. (F.C.T.D.); Stefan v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 35 Imm. L.R. (2d) 21, Simpson J. (F.C.T.D.) and Parmar v. Canada (M.C.I.), November 12, 1997, IMM-3177-95, MacKay J. (F.C.T.D.).