Date: 19980227
Docket: IMM-1275-97
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER MIKHAILOVITCH TEKOTEV
IRINA DMITRIEVNA TEKOTEV
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN, J.:
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer. There are two issues:
| 1. Did the visa officer improperly delegated her duty to assess the applicant's ability to speak, read and write English? |
| 2. Was the applicant denied the opportunity to disabuse the visa officer of any misconceptions? |
[2] The visa officer determined that the applicant could speak, read and write English "with difficulty" and awarded him zero units of assessment on that account. As a result, he was awarded a total of sixty-eight units, two less than the minimum threshold of seventy units required to meet the selection criteria set out in the Immigration Regulations.
[3] As to the first question, it appears that the visa officer instructed her personal assistant to perform reading and writing tests on the applicant. As to the reading test, the personal assistant recorded errors made by the applicant. These were provided to the visa officer who made notes of the errors and in particular the words with which the applicant was unfamiliar. As to the writing test, the visa officer reviewed the applicant's written replies to questions asked by the assistant and noted numerous errors in the written replies.
[4] On the basis of the results of the reading and writing tests, the visa officer concluded that the applicant read and wrote English "with difficulty" and awarded him zero credit for reading and writing.
[5] The visa officer herself spoke to the applicant to determine his ability to speak English. She had to revert to Russian to make herself understood. She concluded he spoke and understood English "with difficulty". At the same time she reviewed the results of the reading and writing tests with the applicant.
[6] The visa officer avers that the applicant was afforded ample opportunity to disabuse her of her conclusion that he read, wrote and spoke English "with difficulty" but that he failed to do so.
[7] Applicant's counsel submits that on facts similar to those in this case, Gibson, J. in Valentinov v. M.C.I., IMM-1482-97, February 26, 1998 concluded there was an improper delegation of the duty to assess the applicant's ability to read English. Respondent's counsel points out two crucial differences between this case and Valentinov, one being, that in this case the visa officer reviewed the reading and writing tests directly with the applicant, and second, that although given an opportunity to do so, the applicant failed to disabuse the visa officer of her views respecting his ability to read, write and speak English.
[8] With respect to the applicant's ability to speak and write English, the facts are clear. The assessment was made by the visa officer. It is only with respect to the applicant's ability to read, in which case the personal assistant listened to the applicant and noted errors which the visa officer then reviewed, that an issue arises.
[9] Having regard to the particular facts of this case, I agree with the respondent that Valentinov can be distinguished. Here the visa officer reviewed the result of the applicant's reading test with the applicant. Even if there was an improper delegation when the personal assistant performed the reading test and recorded the errors made by the applicant, that error was corrected by the visa officer reviewing the reading test directly with the applicant. This review of the applicant's reading test directly with the applicant is sufficient to constitute an assessment by the visa officer of the applicant's ability to read English.
[10] As to the applicant's second argument, that he was denied an opportunity to disabuse the visa officer of misconceptions, no authority was cited that was relevant to the circumstances here. In any event, by reviewing the applicant's reading and writing tests with him and meeting with the applicant to assess his ability to speak English, the visa officer gave the applicant an ample opportunity to disabuse her of any misconception she may have had with his ability with the English language.
[11] The application is dismissed. The parties did not request the certification of a question for appeal.
"Marshall E. Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
February 27, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980227
Docket: IMM-1275-97
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER MIKHAILOVITCH TEKOTEV
IRINA DMITRIEVNA TEKOTEV
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-1275-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ALEXANDER MIKHAILOVITCH TEKOTEV |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 24, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: FEBRUARY 27, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Benjamin A. Kranc
For the Applicants
Mr. James Brender
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Benjamin A. Kranc
Mamann, Kranc
Barristers and Solicitors
212 King Street West
Suite 410
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 1K5
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
Email this Content