Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 19980831


Docket: IMM-4104-97

BETWEEN:

     YIN SHAN, HO

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

on Wednesday, August 26, 1998 as edited)

ROTHSTEIN, J.:

[1]      The Visa Officer was asked to exercise her discretion and issue an immigrant visa to the applicant under subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 SOR/78-122 as amended1. One consideration she took into account in exercising her discretion against the applicant was that the applicant's intended occupation of graphic artist was not in demand in Canada.

[2]      Both parties agree that this was an error and that there was a demand, according to the "Detailed General Occupations List" dated August 23rd, 1993 for such occupation (called Commercial Artist on the List).

[3]      The respondent's argument appears to be that while demand for the applicant's occupation was a relevant consideration, a correct approach by the Visa Officer would not have made any difference to the outcome. In particular, respondent's counsel points out that in the assessment of units, a correct determination on this point by the Visa Officer would have given the applicant only three (3) more units, still insufficient for the issuance of an immigrant visa under subsection 11(2).

[4]      However, this case does not concern subsection 11(2). The applicant apparently conceded she would not qualify under subsection 11(2) and asked for consideration under subsection 11(3).

[5]      This is not a case where the Visa Officer's error is trivial. The exercise of discretion under subsection 11(3) is directed to the economic sustainability of an applicant. Whether there is demand for the job that the applicant is qualified for and is prepared to follow in Canada is certainly an important factor to be considered. With respect to the exercise of discretion under subsection 11(3), it is not for the Court to substitute its discretion based on correct facts for that of the Visa Officer who's discretionary decision was based on incorrect facts.

[6]      The judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different Visa Officer for redetermination.

"Marshall Rothstein"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

August 31, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4104-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      YIN SHAN, HO

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              ROTHSTEIN, J.

DATED:                          MONDAY, AUGUST 31, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. David Bruner

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Bridget O'Leary

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Hoppe, Bruner

                             Barristers & Solicitors
                             1st Canadian Place, Exchange Tower
                             Suite 910
                             P.O. Box 177
                             Stn 1st Canadian Place
                             Toronto, Ontario
                             M5X 1C7

                            

                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19980831

                        

         Docket: IMM-4104-97

                             Between:

                             YING SHAN, HO

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                                                                     REASONS FOR ORDER

                            

__________________

     1      The Regulations referred to in these reasons are:
     11(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a visa officer shall not issue an immigrant visa pursuant to section 9 or 10 to an immigrant other than an entrepreneur, an investor, a provincial nominee or a self-employed person unless          (a) the units of assessment awarded to that immigrant include at least one unit of assessment for the factor set out in item 4 of column I of Schedule I;
         (b) the immigrant has arranged employment in Canada; or
         (c) the immigrant is prepared to engage in employment in a designated occupation.
     11(3)      A visa officer may
         (a) issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is not awarded the number of units of assessment require by section 9 or 10 or who does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), or
         (b) refuse to issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10,
     if, in his opinion, there are good reasons why the number of units of assessment awarded do not reflect the changes of the particular immigrant and his dependants of becoming successfully established in Canada and those reasons have been submitted in writing to, and approved by, a senior immigration officer.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.