Date: 20010404
Docket: IMM-3687-99
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 290
Ottawa, Ontario, Wednesday the 4th day of April 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
AVTAR SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] I have concluded that this application for judicial review should be dismissed for the following reasons.
[2] The visa officer awarded the applicant 6 units of assessment on account of the experience factor. This was the maximum number of units the applicant was entitled to receive in view of the fact that he had been awarded 15 units of assessment under the Education and Training Factor. There is, therefore, no merit in the submission that he ought to have some amount in excess of 6 units.
[3] There is no evidence that the award of units for the Demographic Factor was incorrect. This factor is determined by the Minister and it varies from time to time. In the absence of evidence of any to error by the visa officer in the application of the factor, there is no merit in the submission that the visa officer overlooked the fact that the maximum number of units which can be awarded under this factor is 10.
[4] I cannot find that the visa officer ignored evidence about the applicant's savings. The visa officer specifically noted the savings in the interview notes. I find no evidence properly before the Court that the applicant's employer would provide accommodation to all of the applicant's family. No error was alleged with respect to the visa officer's interpretation of the temple's financial statements. The visa officer concluded, as stated in the refusal letter, that:
You have a spouse and four children, currently residing in India, who intended to accompany you to Canada as permanent residents. Your family will not be given accommodation in the temple. You have not demonstrated that the temple has sufficient support to pay your salary. Furthermore, if the funds were available, your salary is not sufficient to provide you and your family a decent standard of living in Canada.
[5] There is no basis for interfering with that conclusion. It was supported by the evidence and was a conclusion which could reasonably be reached by the visa officer.
[6] In view of the record before the visa officer I have concluded that she did not err in failing to take into account the income earning potential of the applicant's spouse and children. There is simply no indication that any evidence with respect to this was provided to the visa officer, nor does the applicant suggest that he provided such information to the visa officer.
[7] There is similarly no evidence that the visa officer ignored evidence or considered irrelevant considerations or acted in bad faith in awarding 5 units on account of personal suitability.
[8] In the absence of a request or something on the record before the visa officer to suggest good reasons why a units assessment would not properly reflect the chances of the applicant's successful establishment in Canada there is no duty on a visa officer to consider subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, /SOR78-172 ("Regulations"). There is no evidence that the applicant sought an exercise of positive discretion pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Regulations. I find on the record before the visa officer that there was nothing to compel consideration of subsection 11(3) of the Regulations.
[9] For all of these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel submitted no serious question for certification.
JUDGMENT
[10] IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge