Date: 20030219
Docket: IMM-5447-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 199
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED HUMAYUN KABIR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Mick Chong, an immigration officer employed at the Immigration Section of the Canadian High Commission in Singapore, (the "visa officer"), dated October 31, 2001, wherein he refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The applicant, Mohammed Humayun Kabir, is a 33-year-old citizen of Bangladesh.
[3] He applied for permanent residence in Canada as an independent applicant in the intended occupation of Accountant, National Occupational Classification ("NOC") 1111.2. The visa officer interviewed the applicant on October 29, 2001. At the conclusion of the interview, the visa officer awarded the applicant 68 units of assessment. The applicant was refused permanent residence because of insufficient units of assessment.
[4] The applicant submits that the visa officer erred in awarding him only 4 units of assessment for personal suitability. According to the applicant, he should have been awarded no less than 6 units of assessment, which is the average for this category.
[5] When assessing the applicant's personal suitability, the visa officer took the following factors into consideration:
a) the applicant had never been to Canada;
b) the applicant had not done any research in Canada;
c) the applicant had no firm or concrete job strategies;
d) the applicant did not have any contingency plans;
e) the applicant was not able to answer simple questions regarding some of the relevant accounting methods used by Canadian accountants;
f) the applicant confirmed that he had not received any formal accounting training;
g) the applicant confirmed that he had not made any efforts to enrol in any professional upgrading courses since submitting his application; and
h) the applicant had not engaged in any language upgrading since submitting his application.
[6] In light of all these factors, the visa officer concluded the following:
Demonstrated limited motivation, initiative, and resourcefulness with respect to labour market entry and settlement in Canada. PI was awarded 4 units of assessment for personal suitability per Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations.
Application Record at 25.
[7] The applicant submits that the visa officer erred in determining that he did not have any concrete job strategies or contingency plans. He points out he had a job offer from a Canadian employer, specifically Galaxy Alarm Systems Ltd. As such, the visa officer's conclusion is not supported by the evidence. I disagree.
[8] The visa officer noted that the applicant had a job offer; however, this was a non-validated job offer. Furthermore, factors such as whether an applicant has researched the Canadian job market or enrolled in professional upgrading courses are valid considerations when determining personal suitability, even if an applicant has a job offer. The category of personal suitability has been referred to as a basket clause encompassing a general concern with an individual's ability to survive economically. (Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 37 (Q.L.)). As such, the fact that the applicant had neglected to familiarize himself with Canadian employment opportunities, or failed to take measures to upgrade his skills or marketability, were valid considerations. The visa officer did not err in considering these factors and in using them to arrive at a below average score for personal suitability.
[9] The factor of personal suitability and the units of assessment awarded for it is a matter that is entirely within the discretion of the visa officer. (Kompanets v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 726 (Q.L.)). Provided that the visa officer's opinion is reasonable and is neither arbitrary nor capricious, there are no grounds for judicial review. I am of the view that the visa officer's assessment in the case at bar was reasonable and that there is nothing that would justify the intervention of this Court.
[10] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
February 19, 2003.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-5447-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMMED HUMAYUN KABIR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER, J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Les J. Hulka
For the Applicant
Ms. Pamela Larmondin
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Les J. Hulka and Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
267 Pelissier Street
Suite 500
Windsor, Ontario
N9A 4K4
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
Email this Content