Date: 20000530
Docket: IMM-6105-98
BETWEEN:
JURGEN SCHNURR,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
MCKEOWN, J.
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer dated September 9, 1998, which rejected the Applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The principal issues are whether the visa officer erred (1) in relying on the immigration program officer"s refusal to consent under section 55(1) and was there a breach of natural justice in the procedure; (2) by failing to carry out his duty of assessing the Applicant"s second language abilities; (3) by not assessing the Applicant with regard to his cultural or artistic contribution under subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations ; and (4) by awarding the Applicant five units of assessment for the personal suitability factor.
[3] Under subsection 19(1)(i) of the Immigration Act (the "Act"), the Applicant is inadmissible to Canada because a deportation order was deemed to be made against him and he does not have the Minister"s consent to return to Canada.
[4] The Applicant is challenging the decision of the visa officer. The visa officer does not have authority to grant consent pursuant to section 55 of the Act. The visa officer did ask the immigration program officer if he would grant consent and give the Applicant an opportunity to make submissions with respect to the granting of the consent. The immigration program officer decided not to grant consent. There is no evidence that the Applicant challenged the decision of the immigration program officer not to grant consent. The immigration program officer set out his reasons in the CAIPS notes and referred to the fact that the Applicant"s "case had been carefully reviewed several times over the last year." The reasons were open to the immigration program officer and he did not rely on irrelevant or prejudicial material.
[5] Having found that the Applicant was inadmissible to Canada, the visa officer was not required to further assess the application for permanent residence. However, the visa officer did assess the application on the merits, and I am satisfied that he exercised his discretion in a manner that was open to him. Furthermore, he considered the evidence before him and did not rely on irrelevant considerations. Since it is not necessary to my decision, I will review only briefly the three main issues raised by the Applicant.
[6] The Applicant stated in his application that he could speak, read or write French with difficulty. Under Schedule I, item 8, Immigration Regulations, 1978, as amended by section 18 of SOR/93-412, the ability to speak, read or write French with difficulty entitles the Applicant to no credits. There was no other indication of an ability to communicate in French before the visa officer, and thus no need for the visa officer to question the Applicant further.
[7] The Applicant states that, under subsection 2(1) of the Immigration Regulations, the visa officer is required to consider whether the Applicant will make a significant contribution to the economy, or the cultural or artistic life of Canada. I agree that this is in the alternative, but there is a prior requirement in subsection 2(1) which states that the Applicant must show "he has the ability to establish . . . a business in Canada that will create an employment opportunity for himself." The visa officer was of the view that the Applicant would not be creating a viable employment opportunity for himself. Although I might have decided otherwise, it was open to the visa officer to reach this conclusion.
[8] The Applicant states that the visa officer acted improperly in awarding him five units of assessment for the personal suitability factor. This goes to the weight to be attributed to the evidence before the visa officer, and again it was open to the visa officer to award five points. The visa officer considered the Applicant"s initiative, adaptability, resourcefulness and motivation.
[9] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
(Sgd.) " William P. McKeown"
Judge
Vancouver, B.C.
May 30, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-6105-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jurgen Schnurr v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, B.C.
DATE OF HEARING: May 29, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER OF McKEOWN J.
DATED: May 30, 2000
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Elizabeth Bryson FOR PLAINTIFF
| Ms. Pauline Anthoine FOR DEFENDANT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms. Elizabeth Bryson
Vancouver, B.C. FOR PLAINTIFF
Morris Rosenburg
Deputy Attorney General FOR DEFENDANT
Email this Content