FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: IMM-4075-96
KENNETH HOSEIN,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
----------
Heard before the Honourable Mr. Justice J.A. Jerome, ACJ, sitting in Courtroom No. 7 of the Federal Court of Canada, 9th Floor, Canada Life Building, 330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, on Monday, July 28, 1997.
----------
REASONS FOR ORDER
----------
APPEARANCES:
Peter Johnson for the Applicant
Diane Dagenais for the Respondent
Stuart Ziegler - Registrar
----------
Nethercut & Company Limited
Official Reporters
180 Dundas Street West,
Suite 2304
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1Z8
Per: C. F. Nethercut, C.V.R. (Sworn)
HIS LORDSHIP: I'm sorry I can't agree with you and the application has to be dismissed. My reasons briefly are these. It appears to me that the one thing that I am not to do is to in some way substitute my kind if imaginary evaluation for that done by the Visa Officer. I can't send it back to the Visa Officer and say "Why didn't you think of this?" and "Why didn't you consider the fact of these different things that have happened?" and "Why didn't you put more emphasis on this and less on that?" What I have to find out is whether the process was respected and carried out in a way that adheres to the Regulations and the law, and in this case I believe it was.
In particular, looking at paragraph 8, and if we look to the paragraphs leading up to it first, in the first few paragraphs out of the Visa Officer's affidavit, Mr. Verner, and this is nothing more that a schedule leading up to the paragraph 4 conclusion that Mr. Hosein, as a result of the points listed there; 10 for age and 5 for occupation and 15 for whatever, but there is an itemization of every one of these with 9 points for language, 10 points for education, but that totals 63, which appears to agree with the assessment made by you, or at least the initial assessment submitted on his behalf for the paper screening.
At the interview then Mr. Verner goes on to indicate that he has done some of these interviews before and, in this case, he was concentrating, as I am sure is often the situation, on personal suitability completely. He asked about his financial situation among other thing, but in the end the major determinant of success, as he says as follows in paragraph 8, "I gave him 5 points for personal suitability, right in the middle of the scale." He has a high school diploma from Trinidad, which I take it is the equivalent of a Canadian hight school degree, but he doesn't have any qualifications in either area in the field in which he was applying. It certainly is not for me to say or to send it back and say "Let's give him 9" or "Let's give him 8" or "Let's give him more for this for that particular aspect of the matter." This is the Visa Officer's experience that directs him to these conclusions and it's his responsibility to make the assessment and in the present case the affidavit persuades me that, had it not been for the clerical error, perhaps this might not have been a very remarkable case, but I'm sure it did cause some consternation which was straightened out as soon as it could be. Therefore I believe what has happened here is whether I would have reached the same conclusion in each of these items it is not for me to say. It's the Visa Officer's area of expertise and in this case it seems to me that he conducted a proper assessment, gave fair and adequate consideration to appropriate evidence and he reached the conclusion that he has supported in his affidavit by a process that seems to me to be supported as well.
Therefore, I do not find reviewable error and the application is dismissed.
What I will do, as I normally do in these cases, is I will make an endorsement that the application is denied for the reasons given orally and then brief reasons will be filed which I will do when I see a transcript of my reasons. Thank you.
--- Adjournment at 4:54 p.m.
--- CERTIFIED CORRECT:
C. F. Nethercut, C.V.R.
Date Transcribed: August 8, 1997