Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-3139-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 30th day of April, 1999
Present : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between :
BAHRAM Rhaghan Abbasi
27 Behest St., Sardar Sangal, Punak
P.O. Box 15145/37
Tehran, 14769 IRAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION c/o Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
Department of Justice, having office at
Complexe Guy Favreau, 200 René-Lévesque West,
East Tower, 5th Floor, in the city of Montreal,
Province of Quebec,
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of Maria Lavelle, a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Damascus, Syria, dated April 1, 1998, in which she determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the Independent category, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-3139-98
Between :
BAHRAM Rhaghan Abbasi
27 Behest St., Sardar Sangal, Punak
P.O. Box 15145/37
Tehran, 14769 IRAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION c/o Deputy Attorney General of Canada,
Department of Justice, having office at
Complexe Guy Favreau, 200 René-Lévesque West,
East Tower, 5th Floor, in the city of Montreal,
Province of Quebec,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of Maria Lavelle, a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Damascus, Syria, dated April 1, 1998, in which she determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the Independent category.
[2] The letter from the visa officer dated April 1, 1998 reads in part as follows:
| In assessing your application I awarded you full credit for your education and work experience. However, as discussed at the interview I have assessed you as having below average personal suitability. In reaching this determination, I considered amongst other things, that you had made no employment contacts in Canada and demonstrated very limited knowledge of Canada and the Canadian labour market. |
[3] The applicant argues that the visa officer was double counting when she penalized him for having made no employment contacts in Canada and having demonstrated a limited knowledge of Canada and the Canadian labour market as these considerations were already taken into account in the Occupational factor for which the applicant only scored one (1) point out of ten. The applicant further submits that his failure to make employment contacts and his limited knowledge of Canada were irrelevant considerations.
[4] It has clearly been established in the jurisprudence that a visa officer cannot engage in double counting when assessing an applicant on the basis of the criteria outlined pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978. That is, a visa officer cannot consider an applicant's education, language ability, or the like, as criteria in assessing that applicant's personal suitability (see, for instance, Zeng v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1991), 12 Imm.L.R. (2d) 167).
[5] Notwithstanding this general principle, it has further been established by the case-law that it is acceptable to consider one of the other enumerated factors in assessing personal suitability, so long as it is appraised from a different perspective (see, i.e., Ajmal v. M.C.I. (April 17, 1998), IMM-2399-97, Stefan v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1995), 35 Imm.L.R. (2d) 21, Parmar v. M.C.I. (November 12, 1997), IMM-3177-96 and Vasilev v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1996), 110 F.T.R. 62).
[6] This Court has also stated that knowledge of Canada is relevant in the assessment of personal suitability (see, i.e., Hussain v. M.C.I. (1997), 36 Imm.L.R. (2d) 232 and Ali v. M.C.I. (July 22, 1998), IMM-4873-97).
[7] Finally, in Bhatia v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1996), 121 F.T.R. 85, this Court held that the failure to contact potential employers is a valid consideration in assessing an applicant's personal suitability.
[8] Given the above jurisprudence, I consider, in light of the evidence, that the visa officer did not engage in double counting and that the applicant's failure to make employment contacts and learn about the Canadian labour market were relevant considerations with respect to the applicant's resourcefulness, adaptability and initiative.
[9] I now turn to the applicant's other argument that the visa officer, when stating that he had made "no employment contacts in Canada", did not take into account the fact that he had an uncle and good friend in Toronto who is a contractor willing to help him. First, not only is there a presumption that the visa officer had due regard to all the evidence available (see Florea v. M.E.I. (June 11, 1993), A-1307-91), but rather it appears clearly from the notes taken by the visa officer and filed by the applicant himself that the former considered those facts. Second, I agree with the respondent's proposition that it was not patently unreasonable for the visa officer to consider that having friends and an uncle in Toronto willing to help him find a job did not constitute "employment contacts".
[10] Consequently, this Court ought not interfere with the discretionary decision of the visa officer and the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 30, 1999