Date: 19980421
Docket: IMM-1631-97
BETWEEN:
WASEEM IMRAN,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD D.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by Jocelyn Armstrong, a visa officer, dated February 25, 1997. In that decision, the applicant's application for permanent residence was refused.
THE FACTS
[2] The applicant is a national of Pakistan who was born on January 11, 1970. He has been residing in the U.S.A. since September of 1991. He commenced his secondary school education in Pakistan in 1980 and obtained his secondary school diploma in 1985. In 1986, he commenced his college education, obtaining his Bachelor's degree in 1991, also from Pakistan.
[3] While living in Brooklyn, New York, and, in March of 1996, he applied for permanent residence in Canada. In his application, he identified his employment occupation as a "sales promotion administrator".
THE DECISION OF THE VISA OFFICER
[4] The visa officer interviewed the applicant on February 25, 1996. She concluded that the Bachelor's degree from Pakistan was not a "diploma". Accordingly, she awarded the applicant 13 points under the "education" heading. This is the number of points customarily awarded for a two year college degree from Pakistan. The visa officer determined that the applicant spoke English well. However, her further conclusion was that the applicant was not proficient in writing English. Accordingly, 1 point was deducted for ability in writing English.
[5] The visa officer also noted that the applicant could not provide detailed information concerning his current employment with Classic Collection. When she inquired as to his duties as a sales promotion administrator, he floundered with his answers. He was also unable to remember and recall the details contained in his letter of reference. Specifically, he could not recall the amount paid for the rental of his booth at the Javits Center, the products he marketed, or the identity of the manufacturer of these products. Similarly, he could not name his best customers in the business.
[6] Based on the unsatisfactory nature of the visa officer's interview with the claimant, the visa officer concluded that the applicant displayed a remarkable lack of knowledge of the affairs of a company where he claimed to have been employed for the past five years. In her view, this circumstance was clear evidence of a lack of motivation and initiative in his employment by the applicant. On this basis, the visa officer concluded that the applicant was not performing the functions of a sales promotion administrator.
[7] The visa officer then proceeded to assess the applicant on the basis of personal suitability. During the interview, the applicant said that he did not have any close relatives in Canada. As a matter of fact, he had an aunt in Canada which fact he did not disclose to the visa officer. Additionally, it appeared from his answers on the application form that the applicant did not have much knowledge concerning Canada. The visa officer also concluded that the applicant displayed a low level of initiative and motivation. On this basis, the visa officer determined that the applicant would not be able to establish himself successfully in Canada. As a consequence, she only awarded the applicant 5 points for personal suitability.
[8] As a result, and pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, the applicant's application for permanent residence was refused since he was only awarded 66 points out of a minimum of 70 points required for immigration to Canada.
ANALYSIS
[9] At the outset, it should be emphasized that in applications for permanent residence, the onus of proving admissibility rests with the applicant. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide as much relevant information as may be available to assist the visa officer in the assessment of an application.1 The applicant alleges reviewable error in three specific areas:
1) Education
| The applicant introduced into evidence the results from his BS second annual examination as evidence that he possessed a college degree from the University of Punjab. The document entered into evidence does not per se, prove that he has indeed graduated from the University of Punjab. However, this circumstance is of little consequence since the visa officer awarded the applicant the maximum points allowed for a college education. On this basis, the frailty of the supporting evidence is not important. |
| The applicant claims that the visa officer should have awarded 9 points instead of 8 points under this heading. The visa officer deposed that when she asked the applicant to write the name and address of a customer on a sheet of paper, he complied with considerable difficulty. This sheet of paper is to be found in the Tribunal's application record and clearly confirms the visa officer's view as to the applicant's ability to write in English. |
| Without specifically endorsing the test employed by the visa officer, I conclude that this process was a reasonable exercise of the visa officer's discretion in the circumstances and did not constitute a breach of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, it is my view that these circumstances do not constitute procedural unfairness. |
3) The Aunt in Canada
| The applicant states that he advised the visa officer that he has an aunt who resides in Canada. Accordingly, in his view, the visa officer should have awarded him 5 bonus points for this circumstance. In her affidavit, the visa officer denied that the applicant had ever informed her of relatives living in Canada. The applicant's application for permanent residence does not disclose that he had any relatives living in Canada. In these circumstances, I accept as credible the recollection of the interview as related by the visa officer. |
| On this basis, the Court is unable to consider this evidence since it was not before the visa officer at the time she made her decision.2 |
CONCLUSION
[10] For all of the foregoing reasons, it is my view that the within application for judicial review should be dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
[11] Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification.
Darrel V. Heald Deputy Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 21, 1998
__________________
1 See Hajariwala v. Canada (1989) 2 F.C. 79.
2 Compare Lemeicha v. M.E.I. (1993), 72 F.T.R. 49.
Email this Content