Docket:
IMM-2181-13
Citation: 2014 FC 12
Ottawa, Ontario, January
7, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ROBINA KOUSAR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Ms Robina Kousar, a citizen of Pakistan, wished to find a job as a hairstylist in Saskatchewan and become a permanent resident of Canada. She met the criteria under the Saskatchewan Immigration Nominee Program (SINP), but
a visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in London refused her
application because her English language skills were weak. The officer felt
that Ms Kousar would have difficulty becoming economically established in Canada.
[2]
Ms Kousar argues that the officer treated her
unfairly by not giving her a chance to address his concerns about her language
skills. She concedes that her language test scores were poor, but submits that
it was because she was unwell at the time she took the test. She believes she
would do better if given a chance to take the test over again. Ms Kousar also
contends that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because it gave undue
emphasis to language skills and failed to recognize the positive elements in
her file. She asks me to quash the officer’s decision and order another officer
to reconsider her application.
[3]
I cannot find any basis for overturning the
officer’s decision. Ms Kousar had ample opportunity to provide additional
evidence of her English language abilities, but failed to do so. Further, the
officer’s decision was based on a concern that Ms Kousar would be unable to
communicate adequately with persons seeking her hairstyling services. That
concern arose from the evidence showing that her speaking and listening skills
were very limited. Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial
review.
[4]
There are two issues:
1. Did
the officer treat Ms Kousar unfairly?
2. Was
the officer’s decision unreasonable?
II. The
Officer’s Decision
[5]
In July 2012, the officer sent Ms Kousar a
“pre-refusal letter”. He explained that the ability to communicate effectively
is an important factor affecting a person’s chances of becoming economically
established in Canada. He stated that a minimum score of 4.5 on the International
English Language Testing System (IELTS) scale was likely required (Ms Kousar’s
overall score was 3.5). The officer was not satisfied that Ms Kousar would be
able to find work as a hairstylist, or any other employment. While she would have
the support of a family member in Canada, that assistance would not overcome her
lack of linguistic skills.
[6]
Four months later, Ms Kousar responded to the
officer’s letter. She asked for another chance to prove that her language
skills were adequate.
[7]
The officer concluded that Ms Kousar had been
given sufficient opportunity to provide evidence that she had satisfactory abilities
in English. After consulting with an official from Saskatchewan, the officer
referred his negative decision to another officer, who agreed with it. In
January 2013, the officer notified Ms Kousar of his decision by letter.
III. Issue
One – Did the officer treat Ms Kousar unfairly?
[8]
Ms Kousar argues that the officer should not
have rejected her application without giving her a chance to re-take her
language exam, especially since she was not required to submit any language
test scores, had not been informed that she had to meet any particular level of
competence, and had already been approved under the SINP.
[9]
In my view, Ms Kousar was not treated unfairly.
She had ample opportunity to re-take her language test, provide other evidence
of her linguistic skills, or propose a plan for improving her abilities. In
fact, while the officer referred to the test result that would usually correspond
with her chosen trade, she was not required to attain any particular score.
However, she did have the burden of showing she could become economically
established in Canada, and her language skills were obviously a relevant factor
to consider. Notwithstanding Ms Kousar’s SINP approval, the officer was
entitled to consider whether she was likely to establish herself economically
in Canada.
IV. Issue
Two – Was the officer’s decision unreasonable?
[10]
Ms Kousar maintains that the officer’s decision
was unreasonable because the officer:
- Had no basis for
looking beyond her SINP approval;
- Should not have
focussed specifically on her ability to work as a hairstylist;
- Should have
considered the positive elements in her application – experience,
financial resources, family support, and age; and
- Should have
identified a particular timeframe for her to become economically
established in Canada.
[11]
In my view, the
officer’s decision was not unreasonable. He properly took account of the
evidence relating to Ms Kousar’s likelihood of becoming economically
established in Canada. The officer was entitled to look beyond Ms Kousar’s SNIP
approval and consider her ability to find work in her chosen trade, or elsewhere.
There is no indication that the officer failed to consider Ms Kousar’s
application as a whole, or improperly fixated on language skills to the
exclusion of other relevant, and potentially more favourable, factors.
V. Conclusion
and Disposition
[12]
The officer reviewing Ms Kousar’s application
treated her fairly and rendered a decision that fell within the range of
defensible outcomes, based on the facts and the law. Therefore, it was not
unreasonable. Accordingly, I must dismiss this application for judicial review.
Neither party proposed a question of general importance to be certified, and
none is stated.
Email this Content