Date: 19990127
Docket: IMM-2287-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, the 27th day of January, 1999
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
Between:
BOUAZZA ERRAKI
Applicant
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] The appeal is dismissed.
| P. Rouleau |
| J. |
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
Date: 19990127
Docket: IMM-2287-98
Between:
BOUAZZA ERRAKI
Applicant
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of an April 2, 1998 decision by a visa officer rejecting the applicant"s application for permanent residence under paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 .
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Morocco. He filed an application for permanent residence as an independent immigrant on or about February 12, 1997. He wished to settle in Ottawa. The applicant appeared for a selection interview on October 9, 1997.
[3] In a letter dated April 2, 1998, the officer informed the applicant that his application had been rejected. The officer had awarded him 68 units of assessment, two less than the 70 units required for the application to be eligible. The applicant was given no points for knowledge of English, and only 1 point for Personal Suitability.
[4] The applicant appealed this decision on May 12, 1998. He argues, first, that the visa officer erred in her assessment of the knowledge of English factor. She also erred in law in taking into account the applicant"s difficulties in English (factor 8) in her assessment of his Personal Suitability (factor 9). Finally, the applicant argues that the officer erred in her fact-finding in her assessment of the Personal Suitability criterion.
[5] Subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 provides that this Court may intervene in a visa officer"s decision if the officer failed to observe a principle of procedural fairness, erred in law in making his or her decision or based the decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a capricious or unreasonable manner.
Knowledge of English
[6] The officer gave the applicant no points for his knowledge of the English language. The applicant says this assessment is absurd, since he is reasonably capable of expressing himself in English. He has taken immersion courses in English on three occasions " in 1994, 1996 and 1997. Furthermore, when he applied for a Quebec selection certificate, in 1995, he was allocated one point for his knowledge of English.
[7] During the selection interview, the applicant experienced some difficulties in following the conversation in English. He was unable to read and write in English. The visa officer therefore decided, with the applicant"s concurrence, to annotate his ability in English "with difficulty". In accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 under Factor 8 in Schedule 1 of the Regulations , the officer awarded no points for knowledge of English.
[8] The officer made no error warranting the intervention of this Court. Although the applicant was awarded one point on the Quebec examination in 1995, that is not an indication that he spoke English well in 1997. Similarly, taking English classes on a sporadic basis does not mean that one speaks that language.
Consideration of knowledge of English in the assessment of Personal Suitability
[9] A visa officer errs in law if he considers the same item under two assessment factors.1 The applicant is of the opinion that the visa officer took his knowledge of English into account under the Personal Suitability factor. She informed him that his poor knowledge of English put him at a disadvantage, since his destination was a province with an Anglophone majority. If he wished to settle in Quebec, language would not be a suitability problem.
[10] The officer did not err in law. A visa officer is required to assess an applicant"s adaptability, motivation, initiative and resourcefulness under Personal Suitability. The cases hold that considering knowledge of one of the official languages in Personal Suitability does not amount to "double counting" when that item is considered from the standpoint of ability to adapt to Canada.2
[11] In my opinion, therefore, the visa officer correctly took into account Mr. Erraki"s mediocre knowledge of English under "Personal Suitability". In doing so, she was assessing not his comprehension of the language but rather his adaptability in an English-speaking environment.
Assessment of Personal Suitability
[12] The applicant received only one point under Personal Suitability. He thinks the officer"s assessment of his suitability was unreasonable. He relies in particular on the Ting case.3 In that case, the visa officer had awarded 4 points to Ms. Ting under Personal Suitability. In his opinion, she would not adapt well in Vancouver since she did not speak English. Dubé J. overturned the officer"s decision. The officer, he said, had erred in failing to consider the fact that there was a large Asian community in Vancouver when assessing the claimant"s adaptability.
[13] The applicant in the case at bar submits that his situation is analogous to the Ting case. The officer erred, he says, in failing to consider that Ottawa is a bilingual city and that he could have adapted even if he spoke only French.
[14] The applicant has never visited Canada. Settlement in Ottawa was not his personal choice, but the choice dictated by his lawyer. Some friends counselled him on the smaller cities located in Ontario, but he did not compile any documentation on these cities or on the possibilities of employment. The applicant has no specific plan for his establishment. And he has no particular knowledge about the Canadian way of life.
[15] The applicant also stated that living in Canada was not important to him and his wife. They were making a good living in Morocco. He wanted to move to Canada primarily in order to secure his children"s future. He wants to settle in Ontario even if he does not speak English well. He knows the adaptation will be difficult. His wife speaks only Arabic.
[16] The officer concluded that there was an obvious lack of initiative, adaptability and motivation. She therefore awarded him only one point. I see no reason for the intervention of this Court in the visa officer"s decision. Similarly, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the applicant"s destination, the fact that the City of Ottawa is a bilingual city was not a relevant factor.
[17] The appeal is dismissed.
P. Rouleau
J.
OTTAWA, Ontario
January 27, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE NO: IMM-2287-98 |
| STYLE: Bouazza Erraki v. The Minister |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: January 11, 1999 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU J.
| DATED: January 27, 1999 |
APPEARANCES:
| Jean-François Allard FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Josée Paquin FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Brunet Arsenault FOR THE APPLICANT |
Montréal, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
__________________1 Zeng v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 167 (F.C.A.).
2 Ting v. M.C.I. (1996), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 197; Stefan v. M.C.I. (1995), 35 Imm. L.R. (2d) 21; Zhen v. M.C.I. (November 26, 1996), Ottawa IMM-978-96 (F.C.T.D.).
3 Ting v. M.C.I., supra note 2.