Date: 19980116
Docket: IMM-2600-96
BETWEEN:
SHAKEEL AHMED
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JEROME A.C.J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the Visa Officer's decision, dated 9 July 1996, wherein his application for permanent residence, under the independent immigrant category, was refused. The Visa Officer found that the applicant was ineligible under s. 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, as an assessment of his application indicated that he did not obtain the requisite number of units (70) to be considered for approval.
[2] At issue is whether the Visa Officer failed to observe procedural fairness in arriving at her finding without providing the applicant with a guide booklet which adequately reflected the criteria upon which her determination would be made, or whether she otherwise erred in her assessment of the applicant, by determining that he deserved a low score in the personal suitability category, based upon her interview with him, and the remainder of the record provided.
[3] The applicant argues that the Visa Officer failed to observe a duty of fairness to the applicant by failing to provide the applicant with a self-assessment guide booklet that adequately reflected the criteria provided for in the Immigration Act and Regulations for assessment of independent immigrants. In particular, the applicant notes that the guide booklet indicates that a maximum of eight points may be accrued for experience, whereas the maximum stipulated under the Act is actually six points.
[4] The provision of self-assessment guide booklets to candidates for admission to Canada is the purpose of providing information only. By providing these guide booklets, the government does not create a legitimate expectation that the Visa Officer will be bound, in any way, by the candidate's own assessment of his or her chance of success. Rather, as is made clear in the booklets, in making his or her determination the Visa Officer is bound only by the terms of the Act and Regulations, regardless of whether such terms are accurately reflected in the guide booklets issued to would-be immigrants.
[5] The applicant also argues that the Visa Officer did not properly weigh the evidence before her concerning her assessment of the applicant's personal suitability score. It is submitted that the score assigned was so low that it demonstrates some form of bad faith, or bias on the part of the Visa Officer. There is simply no evidence to support this allegation.
[6] It is clear that the Visa Officer had sufficient evidence upon which to make the findings she made. Absent the finding of an error on the record, or a failure to observe procedural fairness, it is not the role of the Court, upon review, to second-guess the findings of the Visa Officer: Hanna v. M.C.I. (IMM-1908-96, 17 January 1997, F.C.T.D.).
[7] In this case, the Visa Officer had both her experience with the applicant during the interview and documentary evidence upon which to base her assessment. In making her assessment, the Visa Officer was entitled to consider that the applicant had been living illegally in the United States and working as a limousine driver (rather than as an auditor), as well as his acknowledgement that he would probably need to seek further training to find a position as an auditor in Canada, to determine whether the applicant demonstrated initiative, or appeared adaptable, motivated or resourceful, as required under the personal suitability criteria stipulated in s. 9 of the Regulations.
[8] While they are very brief, there is no indication in her written observations that the Visa Officer went beyond the statutorily required elements for assessing personal suitability: Zeng v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 167 (F.C.A.). Accordingly, the application for review is denied.
A.C.J.
Ottawa, Ontario
January 16, 1998