IMM-4415-96
B E T W E E N:
EMIL
DASCALU
Applicant
-
and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
REED, J. (orally):
The only issue in this case is whether the visa office
properly exercised his negative discretion to disallow the applicant's
application for permanent residence in Canada. I note firstly the doctrine of
legitimate expectations only applies to procedural matters. The evidence does
not disclose any procedural unfairness.
There was an interview the officer disclosed to the
applicant the source and nature of his concerns. The officer did assess the
applicant on his merits - the officer noted factors such as that the applicant
had quit his job because of lack of professional fulfilment and social
dissatisfaction. He noted the applicant's job experience, or lack thereof, and
the paucity of the evidence concerning some of what was claimed. There is no
substance to the contention that the visa officer delegated his decision making
responsibility or abdicated his decision making responsibility.
A person who applies for permanent residence status in
Canada knows, has to know that the degree of occupational demand in Canada for
people who are qualified to work in the filed in which he or she as such
qualifications is a crucial consideration to a successful application. It is
crucial to that individual's ability to establish him or herself in Canada. As
counsel for the applicant noted, the burden of proof is on an applicant to
demonstrate that he or she should be granted permanent resident status. The
demand for those qualified in the applicant's fields, (air traffic controller /
flight dispatcher) was established, in the manual that the visa officer was obligated
to apply, "as one (1) on a scale of 0 to 10 where 10 ten is the high end
of the scale. There was no change of occupational demand requirements being
imposed on the applicant when the visa officer raised with him in the interview
that he would have difficulty finding employment in his field in Canada because
of a number of factors, e.g. his age, his lack of Canadian training; there was
only one employer, the federal government; the low demand in Canada because of
what we call downsizing. This was not an ambush as counsel suggests.
What is more there has been no attempt to introduce
evidence to show that the visa officer's assessment of the difficulties that
would exist for someone in the applicant's position; in attempting to establish
himself in Canada was incurred, or based on inaccurate information concerning
the job situation in Canada.
For the reasons given the application is dismissed.
"B.
Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
October 1, 1997
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
Names
of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-4415-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: EMIL
DASCALU
-
and -
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER
1, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO,
ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED,
J.
DATED: OCTOBER
1, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr.
M. Max Chaudhary
For
the Applicant
Ms.
A. Leena Jaakkimainen
For
the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr.
M. Max Chaudhary
CHAUDHARY
LAW OFFICE
255
Duncan Mill Road
Suite
812
North
York, Ontario
M3B
3H9
For
the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy
Attorney General
of
Canada
For
the Respondent
FEDERAL
COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-4415-96
Between:
EMIL
DASCALU
Applicant
-
and -
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS
FOR ORDER
Email this Content