Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-2566-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 30th day of April, 1999
Present : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between :
JASVINDER PAUL RUDHAR
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of Jocelyn Armstrong, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York, dated April 21, 1998, refusing the applicant's application for immigration to Canada, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-2566-98
Between :
JASVINDER PAUL RUDHAR
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of Jocelyn Armstrong, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York, dated April 21, 1998, refusing his application for immigration to Canada in accordance with paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, 1976.
[2] The refusal letter from the visa officer reads in part as follows:
| . . . You were assessed in your intended occupation: Farm Equipment Mechanic, CCDO- 8584330. However, you have not convinced me that you have the required minimum of one-year experience nor the qualifications in your intended occupation. A breakdown of your assessment is as follows: |
|
Occupation Demand 10
SVP 15
Experience 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 10
English 02
French 00
Bonus 00
Suitability 01
Total 56
[3] The visa officer also refused the application for the following reasons:
- she did not believe the letter submitted stating that the applicant had worked from 1984 to 1989 as a farm mechanic was bona fide;
- she did not believe the applicant's diploma was bona fide as his name was misspelled;
- although the applicant said he was fluent in English and spoke some French, he spoke English with difficulty and barely any French;
- the documents submitted by the applicant did not appear credible as his name is spelled in at least seven different ways;
- the applicant had been in the United States illegally for seven years and had done nothing to improve or upgrade his skills during this time;
- she was not convinced that the applicant's birth certificate was bona fide and that his relationship with relatives in Canada was not conclusively proven;
- she attempted to call the number for the applicant's arranged employment in British Columbia and was told there was no listing for that number.
[4] In Chiu Chee To v. M.E.I. (May 22, 1996), A-172-93, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for discretionary decisions of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications is the same as that enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1">Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1, where Mr. Justice McIntyre stated at pages 7 to 8:
| . . . It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. . . . |
|
[5] Applying those principles to the facts as established by the evidence in the case at bar, I am not convinced, given the level of deference to be accorded to the visa officer's decision, that she committed a reviewable error. As it is clear from the refusal letter that the visa officer directed her mind to the proper question and that her conclusion was supported by the evidence, including the applicant's representations and the CCDO1 requirements, I do not feel justified, under the circumstances, to intervene.
[6] Consequently, the application is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 30, 1999
__________________
1 Canadian Classification and Directory of Occupations, the informational guide used by immigration officers in assessing applicants for landing under section 8 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172.
Email this Content