Truong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 103

Date: 20040123

Docket:IMM-5359-01

Citation: 2004 FC 103

Ottawa, Ontario, the 23^rd day of January 2004

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHORE

BETWEEN:

                                                          NGOC-ANH THI TRUONG

(Also known aws TRUONG THI NGOC ANH)

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act^[1] and to section 82.1 of the Immigration Act^[2]of a decision of a Visa Officer, dated August 16, 2001, wherein he dismissed the Applicant's application for permanent residence status pursuant to subsection 8(1) and 10(1) of the Immigration Regulations.^[3]

Page: 2

BACKGROUND

[2]                 The Applicant applied for permanent residency status as an assisted relative and through the Family Business Job Offer Program (FBJO). The Applicant asked to be assessed under the occupation of Dressmaker, NOC 7342.1.^[4] The FBJO was approved by the Canada Immigration Centre (CIC) in Hamilton, Ontario on February 5, 2001.

DECISION UNDER REVIEW

[3]                 The Visa Officer assessed the Applicant, awarded her 38 points and thus rejected the Applicant's application.^[5]

ISSUES

[4]                  Did the Visa Officer fail to consider the totality of the evidence before him or improperly weigh the evidence before him?

Page: 3

[5]                 Did the Visa Officer err by not using his positive discretion under subsection 11(3) of the Act?

ANALYSIS

[6]                 Reference is made to the decision in Ngoc-Trang Thu Truong v. Canada (M.C.I.), 2003 FC 1261. Given the similarity of the names and the facts, the Applicant in Ngoc-Trang Thu Truong is related to the Applicant in the case at bar, and she was offered the same type of job as the Applicant from the same aunt. Moreover, the arguments presented by Applicant's counsel in that case were the same as the arguments in the case at bar. The decision of Justice Lemieux should be adopted in its entirety in regard to the interpretation of the Regulations. Reliance upon the decision of Justice Rothstein, then of the Trial Division, in Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1239 (QL) is significant to the case at bar, particularly at paragraph 6 of that decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Page: 4

[7]                 The standard of review of a Visa Officer's decision is patent unreasonableness. The Respondent cites Baker v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[6], Suresh v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[7], Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada^[8], To v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[9], and Chalaby v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[10].

Ignoring Evidence

[8]                 The purpose of the selection criteria, as spelled out in Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations, is to determine whether an immigrant will be able to become successfully established in Canada. Parliament has decreed that an assisted relative Applicant will demonstrate that she or he will be able to become successfully established in Canada by obtaining at least 65 points. The Visa Officer, in relying on Schedule I, applied the correct test in assessing the Applicant's application.

[9]                 It is not the role of the CIC to determine whether an Applicant will become successfully established in Canada. Rather, the role of the CIC in such a case as the one at bar is to determine whether or not the Applicant's proposed employment position should be accepted into the Family Business Job Offer Program. It is then the Visa Officer who determines whether the

Page: 5

Applicant will be able to become successfully established in Canada.

[10]            Siddiqui v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[11] is not applicable to the case at bar. In Siddiqui, the Applicant was required to receive 65 points, but had received 73 points. As he had not been awarded any points under the experience category, however, his application was denied. The Court determined that the Visa Officer had not erred by awarding the Applicant 0 points for experience. Furthermore, the decision does not stand for the proposition that a visa application should be approved where a person does not speak English or French when the job requires a degree of trust but no knowledge of either of the official languages.

[11]            The Respondent submits that it was appropriate for the Visa Officer to factor into his assessment the fact that the Applicant does not speak English, with which the Court agrees.

Discretion under subsection 11(3)

[12]            Had the Applicant wanted to be considered under subsection 11(3) of the Regulations, then it was incumbent on her to apply for consideration and explain why she believed the units of assessment would not reflect her chances of successful establishment in Canada. In this vein,

Page: 6

the Respondent cites Lam v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[12], Yeung v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[13], Gao v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[14], Chen v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[15], Mamun v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[16] in support of his submission.

[13]            Furthermore, subsection 11(3) is intended to operate in unusual cases or cases where the points an Applicant has been awarded are close to the required number of points. Here the Applicant has not explained why her case is unusual, except to state that she is well qualified to fill the proposed employment position. It was therefore reasonable for the Visa Officer to not consider exercising his positive discretion.^[17]

[14]            Did the Visa Officer err by not using his positive discretion under subsection 11(3) of the Regulations?

Page: 7

[15]            Again, the Court agrees with the Respondent that the cases cited by the Applicant are all distinguishable from the case at bar. In Razavi v. Canada (M.C.I.)^[18] and Khan v. Canada (M.C.I.),^[19] the Applicants had very strong applications and the Visa Officers misinterpreted the law or the evidence before them.^[20] In Siddiqui, Cullen, J. upheld the Visa Officer's decision to reject a permanent residence application even though the Applicant had obtained over 70 points. His comment that had the job position been different, then the Applicant may have been successful was obiter and was purely directed to the facts of the case. Here, the Visa Officer made no error in interpreting the law or the evidence, and the Applicant obtained only 38 points. The Applicant has not shown why the Visa Officer should have exercised his positive discretion under subsection 11(3) of the Regulations.

[16]            Moreover, it is settled law that an Applicant must specifically ask the Visa Officer to exercise his or her positive discretion under subsection 11(3) of the Regulations and must explain why he or she would be able to become successfully established in Canada even if she or he does not receive the required number of points according to Schedule I.^[21] The Applicant did not do so, and therefore, the Visa Officer did not err when he did not consider using his positive discretion under subsection 11(3) of the Regulations.

Page: 8

CONCLUSION

[17]            The Application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                                                            ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.                    The application for judicial review is dismissed;

2.                    No question is raised for certification.

_________________________________

                                                                                                                                             

"Michel M.J. Shore"

       Judge

Page: 9

Annex "A"

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2

Applications for visas

      9 (1) Except in such cases as prescribed, and subject to subsection (1.1), every immigrant and visitor shall make an application for and obtain a visa before that person appears at a port of entry.

Loi sur l'Immigration, L.R.C. 1985, c. I-2

Demande de visa

      9 (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1.1) sauf, cas prévus par règlement, les immigrants et visiteurs doivent demander et obtenir un visa avant de se présenter à un point d'entrée.

Immigration Regulations, 1978 (SOR/78-172)

Selection Criteria

      8 (1) Subject to section 11.1, for the purpose of determining whether an immigrant and the immigrant's dependants, other than a member of the family class, a Convention refugee seeking resettlement or an immigrant who intends to reside in the Province of Quebec, will be able to become successfully established in Canada, a visa officer shall assess that immigrant or, at the option of the immigrant, the spouse of that immigrant,

(a) in the case of an immigrant, other than an immigrant described in paragraph (b) or (c), on the basis of each of the factors listed in Column I of Schedule I;

(2) A visa officer shall award to an immigrant who is assessed on the basis of factors listed in Column I of Schedule I the appropriate number of units of assessment for each factor in accordance with the

Règlement sur la Loi sur l'Immigration, 1978 (DORS/78-172)

Critères de sélection

      8 (1) Sous réserve de l'article 11.1 afin de déterminer si un immgirant et les personnes à sa charge, à l'exception d'un parent, d'un réfugié au sens de la Convention cherchant à se réinstaller et d'un immigrant qui entend résider au Québec, pourront réussir leur installation au Canada, l'agent des visas apprécie l'immigrant ou, au choix de ce dernier, son conjoint :

a) dans le cas d'un immigrant qui n'est pas visé aux alinéas b) ou c), suivant chacun des facteurs énumérés à la colonne I de l'annexe I;

(2) Un agent des visas doit donner à l'immigrant qui est appreécié suivant les facteurs énumérés dans la colonne I de l'annexe I le nombre voulu de points d'appréciation pour chaque facteur, en s'en

criteria set out in Column II thereof opposite that factor, but he shall not award for any factor more units of assessment than the maximum number set out in Column III thereof opposite that factor.

...

      10 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2) and section 11, where an assisted relative makes an application for an immigrant visa, a visa officer may issue an immigrant visa to the asisted relative and accompanying dependants of the assisted relative if

...

(b) in the case of an assisted relative who intends to reside in a place other than the Province of Quebec, on the basis of an assessment made in accordance with section 8, the assisted relative is awarded at least 65 units of assessment; and

...

       11 (3) A visa officer may

(a) issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is not awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10 or who does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), or

(b) refuse to issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10, if, in his opinion, there are good reasons why the number of units of assessment awarded do not reflect the chances

       Page: 10

tenant au maximum fixé à la colonne III, confomément aux critères visés dans la colonne II de cette annexe vis-à-vis de ce

facteur.

[...]

      10 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (1.1) et (1.2) et de l'article 11, lorsqu'un parent aidé présente une demande de visa d'immigrant, l'agent des visas peut lui en délivrer un ainsi qu'aux personnes à charge qui l'accompagne si les conditions suivantes sont réunies:

[...]

(b) dans le cas du parent aidé qui entend résider au Canada ailleurs qu'au Québec, sur la base de l'appréciation visée à l'article 8, le parent aidé obtient au moins 65 points d'appréciation;

[...]

      11 (3) L'agent des visas peut

(a) délivrer un visa d'immigrant à un immigrant qui n'obtient pas le nombre de points d'appréciation requis par les articles 9 ou 10 ou qui ne satisfait pas aux exigences des pragraphes (1 ) ou (2), ou

(b) refuser un visa d'immigrant à un immigrant qui obtient le nombre de points d' appréciation requis par les articles 9 ou 10, s'il est d'avis qu'il existe de bonnes raisons de croire que le nombre de points d'appréciation obtenu ne reflète pas

of the particular immigrant and his dependants of becoming successfully established in Canada and those reasons have been submitted in writing to, and approved by, a senior immigration officer.

        Page: 11

les chances de cet immigrant particulier et des personnes à sa charge de réussir leur installation au Canada et que ces raisons on été soumises par écrit à un agent d'immigration supérieur et ont reçu l'appobration de ce dernier.           

SCHEDULE I

(Sections 3, 7 8 and 11)

1. Education

2. Education and Training

3. Experience

4. Occupational Factor

5. Arranged Employment or Designated Occupation

6. Demographic Factor

7. Age

8. Knowledge of English and French Languages

9. Personal Suitability

ANNEXE I

(Aticles 3, 7, 8 et 11)

1. Études

2. Études et formation

3. Expérience

4. Facteur professionel

5. Emploi réservé ou profession désignée

6. Facteur démographique

7. Âge

8. Connaissance du français et de l'anglais

9. Personnalité

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT

                                                                                   

                                                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                           IMM-5359-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                        NGOC-ANH THI TRUONG

(Also known as TRUONG THI NGOC ANH)

v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                                   Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                                     January 20, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                            The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

DATED:                                                              January 23, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Trang Nguyen                                                       FOR THE APPLICANT

Kareena Wilding                                                   FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

TRANG NGUYEN                                             FOR THE APPLICANT

Barrister and Solicitor

Toronto, Ontario

MORRIS ROSENBERG                                    FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada