Date: 19980917
Docket: IMM-1620-98
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 17th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1998
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MARC NADON
Between:
AHMED TACHALLALT
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
MARC NADON
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19980917
Docket: IMM-1620-98
Between:
AHMED TACHALLALT
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.:
[1] The applicant is seeking review of the decision made by Marie-France Prévost, a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Rabat, Morocco, on February 17, 1998. The officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in the assisted relative class.
[2] The officer interviewed the applicant in Rabat on October 22, 1997. Following the interview, the officer awarded the applicant 58 units, whereas the minimum requirement for being allowed to immigrate to Canada is 65 units in the assisted relative class. As a result, the applicant's application for permanent residence was refused.
[3] On the basis of the factors listed in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Immigration Regulations, SOR/78-172 (the Regulations), the applicant scored as follows:
| Age |
10 |
| Occupational demand |
10 |
| Specific vocational preparation |
15 |
| Experience |
06 |
| Arranged employment or designated occupation |
00 |
| Demographic factor |
08 |
| Education |
00 |
| Knowledge of English |
00 |
| Knowledge of French |
06 |
| Personal suitability |
03 |
| TOTAL |
63[1] |
[4] The applicant submits that the officer made a number of mistakes, particularly with respect to his education, his personal suitability, his knowledge of French and, last, his employment.
[5] i) Education
The officer awarded the applicant no units. In light of the academic documents presented by the applicant, the officer found that the applicant had not obtained his Moroccan secondary school diploma. In my view, there is no basis for the applicant's claim that the officer disregarded his academic qualifications.
ii) Personal suitability
The officer awarded the applicant only three units under this heading. The officer found that the applicant had demonstrated [TRANSLATION] "poor personal suitability in terms of adaptability". The officer's reasons can be clearly seen in paragraphs 40, 41, 42 and 43 of her affidavit:
[TRANSLATION]
40. With regard to the assessment of the "personal suitability" factor, I noted during the interview that the applicant showed little personal and professional ability to adapt to the labour market and Canadian life. Although the applicant seemed to me to be a serious and honest person, he demonstrated no concrete preparation with respect to his plan to immigrate to Canada. He showed no interest in the Canadian labour market and he demonstrated little curiosity about the Canadian way of life in general.
41. In addition, the applicant demonstrated no knowledge of Canada. He has not taken the initiative in gathering information, either about Canada in general, or about his province of destination, New Brunswick.
42. The applicant seemed to me to be leavingall aspects of his future establishment in Canada completely up to his brother, Mustapha, who is a permanent resident in Canada. This attitude indicates a lack of interest and personal involvement in both his plan to immigrate and his plan to open a restaurant in New Brunswick.
43. With regard to opening a restaurant in New Brunswick, the applicant showed me no concrete steps in connection with this plan, although it is the very purpose of his application for permanent residence. The applicant has not signed up for any courses to try to learn some English before he arrives in New Brunswick.
[6] It goes without saying that the officer's assessment of the applicant's personal suitability is subjective in nature. The officer met with the applicant in Rabat and, on the basis of the interview and in light of the evidence in the file, she awarded only three units. Unfortunately for the applicant, he was unable to satisfy the officer that he had the suitability needed to become successfully established in Canada.
[7] The applicant has not satisfied me that the officer made an error that might warrant the Court's intervention.
[8] iii) Knowledge of French
The officer awarded the applicant six units out of nine for his knowledge of French. She awarded him no units for his knowledge of English.
[9] The applicant claims that the maximum units to which he was entitled for his knowledge of French was fifteen units rather than nine. That is incorrect; it is clear that the maximum number of units, under item 8 of Schedule I to the Regulations, was nine. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the officer should have awarded him more than six units. Perhaps a different officer would have awarded the applicant more than six units. However, the officer decided that the applicant's knowledge of French rated six units. The applicant has not shown me that the officer erred in awarding him only six units.
[10] iv) Arranged employment or designated occupation
The applicant was awarded no points under this heading. The applicant claims that his intended employment in Canada as a cook (CCDO 6121114) is arranged employment and that he was accordingly entitled to ten units. In my view, that argument is unsound. The applicant did not have arranged employment within the meaning of section 5 of Schedule I of the Regulations, so the officer did not err in awarding him no points.
[11] I therefore conclude that the application for judicial review must be dismissed.
Ottawa, Ontario MARC NADON
September 17, 1998 JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-1620-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: AHMED TACHALLALT v. MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Québec, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 11, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON
DATED September 17, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Takioullah Eidda FOR THE APPLICANT
Patricia Deslauriers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Takioullah Eidda FOR THE APPLICANT
Québec, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
[1]The applicant's unit total is not 63, but 58 units. In an affidavit dated May 6, 1998, Jacqueline Roby, an immigration officer assigned to the Canadian Embassy in Paris, explains at paragraph 8 of her affidavit why the applicant's units add up to 58, not 63:
[TRANSLATION]
8. In the refusal letter, the applicant's total units of assessment in the assisted relative class should have been 58 units, not 63 units. The total of 63 units of assessment corresponds to 58 units, to which 5 extra units or 5 "bonus" units have been added solely for computer reasons. The 5 extra units are added simply so that the cut-off score of 65 units for the assisted relative class will be accepted by the computer system, which accepts only a cut-off score of 70 units.