Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19981009


Docket: IMM-5100-97

BETWEEN:

     SAJJAD SYED GHULAM

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY J.:

[1]      The applicant challenges the visa officer"s refusal of his application for permanent residence as a welding equipment repairer on the ground that he should have been awarded thirteen units instead of ten under the education factor. For the applicant to succeed on this issue, he must first establish that he has "a diploma or apprenticeship certificate that requires at least one year of full-time classroom study [that] has been completed at a college, trade school or other post-secondary institution".1

[2]      The applicant"s formal education extended through high school. He followed this with a one-year training course in a mechanical workshop. Six years later, he received a welder"s procedure and performance certificate from a shipyard and engineering work plant. Neither facility which provided those training programs appears to be a college, trade school or other post secondary institution. I do not accept that a work place which offers on-the-job training is necessarily a trade school. In any event, there is no evidence that the applicant attended full-time classroom study for one year to obtain the certificates upon which he relies. Accordingly, the applicant has not shown any reviewable error in the visa officer"s assessment of ten units for education.

[3]      Similarly, it was open to the visa officer to award six units for personal suitability. The factors considered by the visa officer, as set out in her affidavit, were appropriate.

[4]      This application for judicial review must fail. There will be no order as to costs. Neither party has suggested the certification of a serious question.

                         "Allan Lutfy"

                             Judge

Toronto, Ontario

October 9, 1998


     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-5100-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  SAJJAD SYED GHULAM

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              LUTFY, J.

DATED:                          FRIDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1998

APPEARANCES:                      Mr. Laron Hopkins

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Sudabeth Mashkuri

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:             

                             Codina & Pukitis

                             Barristers & Solicitors

                             1708-390 Bay Street

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M5H 2Y2

                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19981009

                        

         Docket: IMM-5100-97

                             Between:

                             SAJJAD SYED GHULAM

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                             REASONS FOR ORDER                                                                                     

                            


__________________

1      Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172. See Schedule 1, subsection 1(c) under Education.

 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.