Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980513


Docket: IMM-2532-96

BETWEEN:

     ALTAF JIWAN

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

McGILLIS, J.

[1]      The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review a decision of a visa officer dated May 22, 1996, refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada. The applicant had applied to immigrate to Canada in the Assisted Relative category in the occupation of a motor vehicle mechanic.

[2]      Counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that the visa officer erred in law by taking into account irrelevant considerations relating to the applicant's physical appearance in assessing his work experience as a motor vehicle mechanic.

[3]      A review of the visa officer's affidavit and the transcript of his cross-examination on the affidavit indicates that he had "difficulty believing" certain aspects of the applicant's statements concerning his work experience. The visa officer also formed the opinion, for various reasons, that the applicant did not have the appearance of a motor vehicle mechanic, but rather appeared to be someone who held a job that was more clerical in nature.

[4]      Despite the concerns outlined in his affidavit and articulated during the course of his cross-examination, the visa officer nevertheless "...gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt...", and determined that the applicant had over two years of relevant work experience as a mechanic. As a result, he awarded him 4 units of assessment.

[5]      Even if I were to accept the argument of the applicant's counsel that the visa officer erred by taking into account irrelevant considerations relating to the applicant's physical appearance, the evidence in the record indicates that the applicant was nevertheless awarded the requisite number of points for his years of experience in his current job. In the circumstances, the error was not material, in that it did not affect the visa officer's assessment of the applicant's relevant work experience, in either his current or previous jobs.

[6]      The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.

"D. McGilis"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

May 13, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-2532-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      ALTAF JIWAN

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  MAY 12, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              MCGILLIS, J.

DATED:                          MAY 13, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. Max Chaudhary

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Lori Hendriks

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:             

                             Chaudhary Law Office

                             812-255 Duncan Mill Road

                             North York, Ontario

                             M3B 3H9

                                 For the Applicant

                              George Thomson

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent


                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19980513

                        

         Docket: IMM-2532-96

                             Between:

                             ALTAF JIWAN

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                 REASONS FOR ORDER

                            


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.