IMM-1777-96
B E T W E E N:
ANWAR HUSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D. J.:
INTRODUCTION
This is an application for judicial review of a decision by Immigration Officer Mary Ellen Clancy (the Visa Officer) dated April 2, 1996. By that decision the Visa Officer refused to issue an immigration visa to this applicant. Her refusal was based on an assessment of the various factors set out in Schedule 1 of the Immigration Act. In this assessment the applicant acquired a total of 67 units, three less than the 70 units required by the Schedule.
THE VISA OFFICER'S DECISION
The Visa officer's assessment was based on the necessary requirements for an Aircraft Engine Tester. The applicant challenges this assessment only in respect of the personal suitability factor. For that factor, the applicant was given 3 out of a possible 10 units. The ratio for such a low assessment was explained in the refusal letter as follows: "At the interview, your knowledge of Canada and reasons for wanting to immigrate to Canada were discussed. You showed an almost complete lack of knowledge about Canada and your units of assessment for Personal Suitability reflect a lack of initiative, motivation and resourcefulness from someone wanting to immigrate there." In the category of Personal Suitability, the applicant's representative did not make any recommendation as to the assessment. All of that representative's suggested assessments in the other categories were adopted by the Visa officer.
THE FACTS
The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He was born January 20, 1954 and was habitually resident in Kuwait. He first applied for permanent residence in Canada on February 28, 1995. His former employment was as an Aircraft Engine Tester. He indicated that he wished to pursue that occupation in Canada. When asked why he wished to immigrate to Canada, his initial answer was that Canada was a "good developing country" where his children would be able to obtain an education. He later stated that while the political and economic situation in Pakistan was deteriorating, the political and economic situation in Canada was stable.
He added that in his view, Canada is a desirable place in which to live because it has a low crime rate and a good educational system. When questioned further, he was unable to name three major Canadian cities or the capital of Canada. He did not know the number of provinces in Canada or the population of Canada. He was also unable to identify any companies in Canada who would be likely to employ someone in his occupation. He said that he had a job offer in Ottawa. However, he could only produce a letter from a California placement service. That letter contained no details concerning employment except a general statement that he could be offered employment in Canada or the U.S.A. as an aircraft engine technician/inspector. He admitted that he had not contacted any companies concerning employment. The contact with the California placement service was initiated by his brother.
At the conclusion of the interview the Visa officer advised the applicant that his application was unsatisfactory for the following reasons: Lack of preparation; lack of knowledge of Canada; lack of research into Canadian job possibilities; lack of initiative, motivation, interest and resourcefulness. As a consequence and for these reasons, his personal suitability assessment would be low. The applicant sent a further letter to the Visa officer in which he expanded on his earlier letter relating to the political and economic stability in Canada. The Visa officer received this letter on April 1, 1996 but found nothing in it to alter her initial impressions of personal suitability. Accordingly, on April 2, 1996, she refused the application.
ISSUES
1. Did the Visa officer take into account irrelevant considerations in assessing the applicant's personal suitability?
2. Did the Visa officer "double count" work experience and personal suitability by having regard to the applicant's inability to describe his job requirements as well as his failure to provide any documentation under the headings of both work experience and personal suitability.
3. Did the Visa officer ignore relevant evidence in refusing to consider the letter from the placement service as an offer of employment?
ANALYSIS
1. Irrelevant Considerations
The applicant submits that the irrelevant consideration relied on by the Visa officer in her assessment of personal suitability was the applicant's knowledge of Canada. I do not agree that lack of knowledge of Canada is an irrelevant criterion. In the Stefan case1, my colleague Simpson J., stated:
| " Knowledge of Canada |
| Finally, I do not consider a knowledge of Canada to be an extraneous factor. It was reasonable to infer that someone who wanted to bring her family here, but had not taken the trouble to learn something of Canada, lacked the initiative and resourcefulness necessary for successful establishment in this country." |
I agree with that view of the matter. Surely lack of knowledge of Canada in the context of personal suitability for employment in Canada cannot be said to be an extraneous factor. In my view, the Visa officer did not act unreasonably in taking this factor into account.
2. Double Counting
I am also unable to accept this submission. My colleague Wetston J., decided in the case of Vasilev vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration2) that the assessment of language ability did not amount to "Double Counting" where language ability, along with a lack of contacts and relatives in Canada, was considered in the context of whether the applicant could become successfully established in Canada. I followed the Vasilev decision in the case of Zhen vs. M.C.I.3 when I concluded that the Visa officer did not "double count" the applicant's knowledge of English. I concluded, rather, that the inability to speak English, amongst other factors, was considered from the perspective of the applicant's ability to establish a business, and a separate assessment was made in quantifying the points to be granted to the applicant under the factor of "language ability". My interpretation of the unambiguous words of the regulation and my appreciation of the relevant jurisprudence persuades me that the category of personal suitability is intended to be somewhat of a basket clause encompassing a general concern with the applicant's ability to successfully survive economically in this country.
3. Offer of Employment
I am not persuaded that the Visa officer erred in refusing to consider the letter from the California placement service as an offer of employment. The weight to be given a letter of this nature is a question of fact to be determined by the Visa officer. She raised her concerns about the indefinite and imprecise nature of the letter with the applicant. He was unable to provide further details since he himself had not even participated in the application process. In my view, the conclusion reached by the Visa officer with respect to the California letter was clearly open to her on the facts of this case.
CERTIFICATION
Counsel for the Applicant requested that the following question be certified as a serious question of general importance pursuant to the provisions of section 83 of the Immigration Act:
| "Is a knowledge of Canada within the ambit of personal suitability as set out in Schedule 1 of the Immigration Regulations 1978" |
Counsel for the respondent opposed the request. I agree with Counsel for the respondent that this is not a case for certification since the issue here is fact specific to the particular circumstances at bar.
CONCLUSIONS
For all of the above reasons the within application for Judicial Review is dismissed.
"Darrel V. Heald D.J."
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 15, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1777-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANWAR HUSSAIN
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 13, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D. J. |
DATED: JANUARY 15, 1997
APPEARANCES:
M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Stephen H. Gold
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Max Chaudhary
Barrister & Solicitor
255 Duncan Mill Road, Suite 812
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Applicant
Stephen H. Gold
Department of Justice
2 First Canadian Place
Suite 3400, Exchange Tower, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-1777-96
Between:
ANWAR HUSSAIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 35 Imm L.R. (2d) 21 at p. 24
2 (1996) 110 F.T.R. 62
3 Imm-978-96. Nov. 26, 1996