Date: 19990705
Docket: IMM-175-98
BETWEEN:
ZAKIR HOSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[Delivered from the Bench at Montreal, P.Q.
on Tuesday, June 22, 1999]
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] I cannot find any reviewable error in this Federal Court Act judicial review application by Zakir Hossain (the "applicant") from the decision dated January 5, 1998 by Victor Majid, Second Secretary at the Canadian High Commission in Singapore (the "visa officer") refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada in the intended occupation of Administrative Officer.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, was interviewed by the visa officer on December 17, 1997 after a first assessment of his application had been set aside on consent by Lutfy J. for the reason that visa officer John Rose, who made the first assessment, had not kept a proper administrative record of his interview notes.
[3] Mr. Majid assessed the applicant 60 units under the CCDO and 50 units under the NOC. Seventy units of assessment are required under the CCDO for visa entitlement subject to meeting all other applicable provisions under the Immigration Act (the "Act") and the Immigration Regulations (the "Regulations").
[4] The applicant's challenge in this Court concentrated on the language and personal suitability factor assessments. He did not, and indeed could not, challenge other prescribed criteria such as education, experience, and occupational demand because he was assessed the maximum number of units in those categories. The applicant received 2 units for language and 5 units out of a possible 10 units for personal suitability.
[5] There was also an allegation that the visa officer had not reviewed the applicant's letters of reference in determining the experience factor. In my view, this ground has no merit. The applicant was assessed the maximum units of assessment for the experience factor.
[6] The applicant also said the visa officer was aggressive during the interview and did not properly conduct it. This was denied by the visa officer in his responding affidavit. After reviewing the record, I am satisfied that Mr. Majid properly conducted the interview and provided the application a full and fair assessment.
The language assessment
[7] In terms of the language assessment, in my view, there are no grounds for revision on the basis of any error. The visa officer's assessment of the applicant's language abilities, as required by the Regulations, focussed on the applicant's reading, speaking and writing skills in the English language, the applicant having no skills in French.
[8] The visa officer tested the applicant's writing skills by asking him to write a few lines about his father's business. The visa officer asked the applicant to read from an article and he assessed his conversation during the interview. The Regulations prescribe three skill levels: fluent, well, and difficult, which is the lowest level.
[9] The visa officer found the applicant's writing skills at the "difficult level" in terms of grammar and composition. The applicant admits he made a few spelling mistakes. The applicant's writing test was appended to the visa officer's responding affidavit. Based on a review of the applicant's writing test result, I see no reason to disturb the visa officer's finding on this aspect of the applicant's English language ability.
[10] The visa officer found the applicant's spoken English was at the well level but not fluent; he found the applicant's reading skill was at the highest level " fluent. Those aspects of the applicant's language abilities were not seriously challenged before me.
The personal suitability assessment
[11] The applicant was assessed at 5 units out of a possible 10; he was assessed as being average in terms of this factor. The personal suitability factor aims at determining how well an applicant will succeed in establishing himself or herself in Canada and looks at criteria such as motivation, resourcefulness and adaptability.
[12] The visa officer was of the view the applicant would experience difficulty in establishing himself in Canada because he had never worked outside Bangladesh; had never visited Canada; had displayed no evidence of having taken any effort to research or otherwise gain knowledge of Canada and its living conditions; had no knowledge of the Canadian job market in respect of Administrative Officers and had not sought employment in Canada.
[13] The applicant stated that the visa officer did not properly evaluate him by not taking into account his young age, his education and his successful business ventures. He also alleged double counting.
[14] The factors taken into account and how they were applied by the visa officer in respect of the personal suitability factor have received this Court's sanction in several cases. Moreover, in my view, there is no evidence on the record that the visa officer double counted the applicant's weakness in language skills with personal suitability.
[15] There is another element to this case. Even if the personal suitability factor was adjusted upwards (having noted previously that the other assessment factors could not be disturbed because they were at the maximum level or otherwise proper) the applicant could not possibly reach 70 units. Noël J. (as he then was) in Yang v. Canada (IMM-817-97, February 26, 1998 (F.C.T.D.)) held such circumstances compelled no judicial intervention.
[16] For these reasons, this judicial review application is dismissed.
"François Lemieux"
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
JULY 5, 1999