Date: 20000608
Docket: IMM-4190-99
BETWEEN:
YEVGENI SAVVATEEV
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered on July 13, 1999. In her decision, Nora M. Egin refused the application of Yevgeni Savvateev (the "Applicant") for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The Applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was initially received on or around April 15, 1997. On September 16, 1997, Patricia Fitzgerald, a visa officer, rejected the Applicant"s application owing to the fact that he had obtained 59 units of assessment without an interview.
[3] On June 8, 1999, Madam Justice McGillis granted an application for judicial review of the decision of Patricia Fitzgerald. Madam Justice McGillis found that as the Applicant had a bona fide job offer in his intended occupation, Ms. Fitzgerald had a duty to assess the Applicant under subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978. The decision of Patricia Fitzgerald was quashed and the Applicant"s application was sent back for redetermination.
[4] On July 13, 1999, another immigration officer, Ms. Egin (the "visa officer") again refused the Applicant"s application for permanent residence. The Applicant was assessed under the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") as well as under the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations ("CCDO") as an electronic equipment repairer. The visa officer found that the Applicant obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada.
[5] The Applicant was awarded the following units of assessment:
Age 10
Occupational Factor 01
| Specific Vocational Preparation 15 |
or Education Training Factor
Experience 06
Demographic Factor 08
Education 13
| Knowledge of French and English 06 |
| Assisted Relative Bonus 00 |
[6] The Applicant alleges that the visa officer failed to properly consider whether the Applicant was a suitable candidate for an exercise of positive discretion pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations. For its part, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "Respondent") maintains that the visa officer complied with the directions contained in Madam Justice McGillis" Reasons for Order in that she considered the informal job offer.
[7] Subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations stipulates:
| A visa officer may
(a) issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is not awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10 or who does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), or
(b) refuse to issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10, if, in his opinion, there are good reasons why the number of units of assessment awarded do not reflect the chances of the particular immigrant and his dependants of becoming successfully established in Canada and those reasons have been submitted in writing to, and approved by, a senior immigration officer.
|
L'agent des visas peut
a) délivrer un visa d'immigrant à un immigrant qui n'obtient pas le nombre de points d'appréciation requis par les articles 9 ou 10 ou qui ne satisfait pas aux exigences des paragraphes (1) ou (2), ou
b) refuser un visa d'immigrant à un immigrant qui obtient le nombre de points d'appréciation requis par les articles 9 ou 10, s'il est d'avis qu'il existe de bonnes raisons de croire que le nombre de points d'appréciation obtenu ne reflète pas les chances de cet immigrant particulier et des personnes à sa charge de réussir leur installation au
Canada et que ces raisons ont été soumises par écrit à un agent d'immigration supérieur et ont reçu l'approbation de ce dernier.
|
[8] From the evidence before me, I am of the opinion that the visa officer followed the directions contained in Madam Justice McGillis" Order. At paragraph 20 of the visa officer"s affidavit, the visa officer deposes:
| I considered all the information before me, including an informal job offer letter submitted by the Applicant, and came to the opinion that the 59 units of assessment awarded to the Applicant accurately reflected his chances of becoming successfully established in Canada. I found there were no "good reasons" to make a positive submission or recommendation pursuant to paragraphs. 11(3)(a). |
[9] Thus, I cannot conclude that the visa officer erred in not exercising her positive discretion nor can I conclude that the visa officer committed any other reviewable error in rejecting the Applicant"s application for permanent residence. Counsel indicated that there is no question for certification.
[10] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Elizabeth Heneghan" J.F.C.C.
Email this Content