Date: 20021009
Docket: IMM-3388-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1052
Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, the 9th day of October, 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
YU MIN HUANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Yu Min Huang (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of visa officer, Margery K. Berry (the "Visa Officer"). In her decision dated June 4, 2001, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The Applicant was born in Vietnam. He later moved to and became a citizen of the People's Republic of China.
[3] He made an application for permanent residence in Canada through the Hong Kong office of the Canadian Consulate General on July 14, 1999. He applied as a member of the "independent, skilled worker" class and indicated that his intended occupation in Canada would be "computer programmer". This occupation is classified under the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") as NOC 2163. As well, the Applicant indicated in his application that he had an uncle living in Canada and his application was evaluated under the "assisted relative" category.
[4] The Applicant was scheduled for an interview on May 22, 2001. He attended with his wife; the interview was conducted without an interpreter and according to his affidavit filed in this proceeding, the interview lasted approximately 45 minutes.
[5] During the interview, the Applicant was given a test on computer programming. The test was conducted in English. Although ten minutes were assigned for completion of the test, the Applicant required more time for completion.
[6] He was also tested on his English language ability with a four question test on an article written in the English language. The Applicant claims he was interrupted by the Visa Officer during this test and this affected his concentration and ability to complete the questions in the time allotted.
[7] In her refusal letter dated June 4, 2001, the Visa Officer awarded 50 units of assessment to the Applicant in the occupation of computer programmer NOC 2163. The points were awarded as follows:
Age 10
Occupational Factor 00
Education/Training Factor 15
Experience 00
Arranged Employment 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 15
English 02
French 00
Personal Suitability 00
Total 50
[8] In her refusal letter, the Visa Officer stated that the Applicant did not meet the employment requirements as set out in NOC 2163, for a computer programmer, based on the description of his education and training. Consequently, he was awarded no units for the occupational factor. The Visa Officer also stated that she had determined that the Applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties of a programmer as described in NOC 2163, and zero units were assigned for the experience factor.
[9] The Applicant now argues that the Visa Officer committed a number of errors in her assessment of his application. He says that she improperly assessed his education, training and work experience as a computer programmer. He alleges that she erred in her evaluation of his English language ability and alternatively, allowed the low assessment in the language factor to influence her judgment of his skills, training and experience in his intended occupation.
[10] Next, he argues that the Visa Officer erred in her assessment of his personal suitability. He argues that she erred in her assessment in failing to award units under the assisted relative factor and finally, that she erred in failing to exercise her discretion pursuant to s. 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations SOR/78-172, as amended.
[11] In essence, the Applicant is challenging findings of fact made by the Visa Officer in the exercise of her statutory discretion. Pursuant to Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 182 F.T.R. 251 (T.D.), factual findings made by a visa officer are to be accorded a high degree of deference by a reviewing court. In the present case, the record shows that the conclusions of the Visa Officer are reasonably grounded in the evidence before her.
[12] There is no evidence to show that the Visa Officer considered irrelevant or extraneous matters in reaching her conclusion.
[13] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[14] Although counsel for the Applicant submitted questions for certification, in my opinion, this application does not raise a question for certification.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3388-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: YU MIN HUANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002
APPEARANCES: Mr. Marvin Moses
For the Applicant
Ms. Amina Riaz
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Moses and Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
480 University Avenue
Suite 610
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1V2
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20021009
Docket: IMM-3388-01
BETWEEN:
YU MIN HUANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER