IMM-1908-96
B E T W E E N:
FARIS CONSTANTIEN HANNA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD, D.J.:
I have reached the conclusion that this application for judicial review must be dismissed.
In assessing the personal suitability of the applicant, the visa officer concluded that because of his inadequate skills in the English language, he would not integrate quickly into the labour force. This was a finding of fact which the visa officer was entitled to make on this record. Such findings are entirely within the discretion of the visa officer and unless the resulting determination is patently unreasonable, it should not be set aside.1 I have concluded that the determination at bar is not patently unreasonable.
A perusal of this record does not persuade me that the visa officer relied on irrelevant or extraneous considerations.
I think also that it is evident from the record that she had a clear "grasp of the issues" in this case. In such circumstances it is not proper for a reviewing Court to interfere with the decision of the visa officer.2
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the visa officer erred in failing to consider the fact that the applicant's relatives in Canada were willing to assist the applicant. In the case of Kats v. M.C.I.,3 my colleague McGillis J. had the occasion to deal with a similar situation with respect to assistance from relatives in Canada. She concluded that the visa officer did not err in failing to consider that circumstance when making his decision. I agree with that view of the matter and would apply the rationale of that decision to the case at bar.
Counsel for the applicant, also submitted that the visa officer erred in that he engaged in "Double Counting" of the applicant's ability to speak English. I do not agree that the visa officer "double counted" the applicant's knowledge of English in this case. As in the Zhen case4 the visa officer here considered the applicant's language difficulties from the perspective of his ability to establish himself in his occupation as a qualified chemist.5
Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with that view of the matter. Accordingly no question is certified.
Accordingly, and for the above reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Darrel V. Heald D.J." Judge
Toronto, Ontario
January 17, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1908-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: FARIS CONSTANTIEN HANNA
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 16, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HEALD, D. J. |
DATED: JANUARY 17, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. David Bruner
For the Applicant
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hoppe, Bruner
1st Canadian Place
Exchange Tower, Suite 910
P.O. Box 177, Station 1st Canadian Place
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1C7
For the Applicant
Department of Justice
2 First Canadian Place
Suite 3400, Exchange Tower, Box 36
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1K6
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-1908-96
Between:
FARIS CONSTANTIEN HANNA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 Compare Lim v. Canada (1991), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.).
2 See Boulis v. M.E.I., 1974 S.C.R. 875.
3 Court File IMM-1414-96, December 10, 1996.
4 IMM-978-96, November 26, 1996.
5 See also Vasilev v. Canada (M.C.I.), (1996) 110 F.T.R. 62.
Email this Content