Date: 19971223
Docket: IMM-807-97
Between :
WAI KEE LAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer E. M. Halston (the visa officer), dated January 23, 1997, wherein the said officer refused the applicant's application for immigration to Canada.
[2] The applicant, Wai Kee Lam, resides in Lo Wai Village, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong. She made an application for permanent residence in the Independent category on November 29, 1995 with the intended occupation of "Teacher of Buddhism".
[3] The visa officer explained that the applicant had been assessed in the Independent category in the occupation "Religious Education Worker (Nun)" (CCDO: 2519-114), and that her application had earned the following units of assessment pursuant to subsections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978:
Age 06
Occupational Demand 10
Specific Vocational Preparation 15
Experience 06
Arranged Employment 10
Demographic Factor 08
Education 00
English 00
French 00
Personal Suitability 04
Total 59[1]
[4] The visa officer noted that despite the fact that the applicant was awarded extra points for the written offer of employment from the Fu-Hui Society Temple, she had nevertheless failed to earn the minimum required 70 units of assessment to be admitted in the Independent category. The visa officer held that the units of assessment awarded were an accurate reflection of her ability to successfully establish in Canada.
[5] There was also no other occupation apparent on her application in which she might be qualified and experienced, and under which her application could be successful.
[6] The visa officer concluded that the applicant was therefore a member of the class of persons who are inadmissible to Canada described in paragraph 19(1)(d) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. Her application was therefore refused.
[7] The visa officer added that "I have also considered other factors in your application and find no other basis for approval".
[8] Upon reading the affidavits and the material filed, and upon hearing counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the visa officer clearly provided a full and fair assessment of the applicant's application and committed no error which would vitiate the decision and warrant the intervention of this Court.
[9] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed. This is no matter for certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 23, 1997