Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980416


Docket: IMM-2617-97

BETWEEN:

     ABDUL RAUF

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

HEALD, D.J.

[1]      This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Sara Trillo dated June 13, 1997 an Immigration Officer at the office of the Canadian Consulate General in New York. By that decision, the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.

Facts

[2]      The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He came to the U.S.A. in 1993 with a false passport. He remained in the U.S.A. without any legal status. The applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada at the office of the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo, New York on June 14, 1996. His application was as an Independent applicant pursuant to the skilled workers program. Such applicants are assessed and processed pursuant to the points system. This applicant was assessed as follows:

     Factor                  Units

     Age                  10

     Occupational demand      05

     Vocational preparation      15

     Experience              06

     Demographic Factor          08

     Education              10

     English              06

     French              00

     Personal Suitability          05

        

             Total          65

Pursuant to the Regulations in force at the time, an applicant must obtain at least 70 points of assessment to be granted status as a permanent resident. Since the applicant only obtained 65 points, his application for permanent residence was refused.

The Applicant's Submissions

[3]      In counsel's submission, the visa officer should have awarded the applicant 13 points, rather than 10 points, for the Education factor. Counsel makes this submission because it is alleged that the applicant completed a "three year full-time college diploma". Counsel's further submission is that 3 additional points should have been awarded for fluency in speaking, writing and reading English. In counsel's view, these six additional points would have produced a total of 71 points, or one point in excess of the required minimum. The applicant makes the further submission that points should have been awarded for experience and personal suitability.

Analysis

[4]      In my view, the applicant's submissions supra are without merit. The affidavit of Visa Officer Sara Trillo establishes that the applicant does not have a college diploma. He has rather a certificate from a higher secondary program which would entitle the applicant to enter a college or university. The Trillo affidavit further establishes that the holder of such a certificate should only be awarded ten units of assessment under the education factor1.

[5]      With respect to the language fluency criterion, I conclude that the visa officer was clearly justified in deciding that he was unable to award the applicant the total number of units for fluency in English. He noted that the applicant was able to speak and read English well but not fluently. He added that "he writes English with difficulty". To support this view, a copy of the applicant's written English is attached as Exhibit B to his affidavit. A perusal of Exhibit B makes it perfectly clear that the visa officer was not exaggerating in any way in concluding that the applicant "writes English with difficulty".

[6]      The applicant also challenges the visa officer's conclusions with respect to experience and personal suitability. In my view, these conclusions were reasonably open to him based on the reasons set out in his detailed affidavit2. As observed by counsel for the respondent, counsel for the applicant chose not to cross-examine on that affidavit.

Conclusion

[7]      For the foregoing reasons, i have concluded that the within application for judicial review should be dismissed.

Certification

[8]      Neither counsel suggested that a serious question of general importance is involved in the circumstances of this case. I agree. Accordingly, no question is certified.

"Darrel V. Heald"

D.J.

Toronto, Ontario

April 16, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-2617-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      ABDUL RAUF

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  APRIL 16, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              HEALD, D.J.

DATED:                          APRIL 16, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. Yossi Schwartz

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Brian Frimeth

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:             

                             Roach, Schwartz & Associates

                             Barristers and Solicitors

                             688 St. Clair Avenue West

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M6C 1B1

                                 For the Applicant

                              George Thomson

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent


                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19980416

                        

         Docket: IMM-2617-97

                             Between:

                             ABDUL RAUF

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

                                 REASONS FOR ORDER

                            


__________________

     1      See paragraph 22 of the affidavit of Sara Trillo - Respondent's Application Record, page 7.

     2      See Respondent's Record - pp. 1-10.

 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.