Date: 20010125
Docket: IMM-167-00
BETWEEN:
AFTAB ALI ASHRAF
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY A.C.J.
[1] Aftab Ali Ashraf, a citizen of Pakistan, has been working in the United Arab Emirates since 1979 as an aircraft instrument and electrical technician. His application for permanent residence in Canada was assessed under the intended occupation of Aircraft Electrical Technician (NOC 22442). He was awarded the sixty-five units of assessment, five short of the required minimum, and his application was refused.
[2] In this application for judicial review, the applicant challenges the visa officer's assessment under the language and personal suitability factors.
[3] In his signed application form, the applicant described his ability to speak, read and write English and French as "fluent" and "not at all" respectively. One month later, in the letter of transmittal accompanying the application for permanent residence, the applicant's immigration consultant indicated that twelve units of assessment should be awarded for official languages. This would be three units more than that awarded by the visa officer on the basis of the information in the application form.
[4] In his affidavit, the applicant states that he did not succeed in having the visa officer receive his French-language course certificate during the interview. On the basis of this certificate, a copy of which was not filed with the affidavit, the applicant now argues that at the time of the interview he was proficient in French at the level of "well".
[5] The visa officer's affidavit is not consistent with the applicant's evidence on this point. The visa officer states: "During the interview, the applicant never suggested that his application was incorrect or that he had knowledge of French."
[6] It is trite law that the applicant has the burden of proof in this proceeding. Neither deponent was cross-examined. The French-language course certificate is not before the Court in this proceeding. There is no evidence concerning the substance of any French course that the applicant might have taken during the twelve-month period between the date of his application and his interview. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that his French language ability would have improved from "not at all" to "well" during this period.
[7] In my view, the respondent is correct in asserting that the visa officer had no duty to assess the applicant's French language ability based on an inference to be drawn from his immigration consultant's transmittal letter. There was no change to the signed statement in the application form that the applicant had no ability in French.
[8] The applicant's second argument is based on a microscopic analysis of the visa officer's CAIPS notes concerning her assessment of seven units for personal suitability. The reference to the applicant's age must be read in the context of her views concerning his adaptability to live and work in North America, after having spent all of his life in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. This peripheral mention of the applicant's age does not constitute "double counting": Barua v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 47 Imm.L.R. (2d) 283 (T.D.) at paragraph 19.
[9] Similarly, it was not a reviewable error for the visa officer to note that the applicant had not exhibited a significant career progression with the same employer since 1979. In Prajapati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 31 Imm.L.R. (2d) 182 (T.D.), upon which the applicant relies, Justice Gibson noted that dedication to a single employer should not be assessed negatively where a person progressed through the ranks in employment over a considerable number of years. There is no evidence in this case that the applicant's functions changed or that he was promoted during the relevant period.
[10] For these reasons, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
"Allan Lutfy"
A.C.J.
Toronto, Ontario
January 25, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: AFTAB ALI ASHRAF |
Applicant
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2001 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY LUTFY A.C.J. |
| DATED: THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2001 |
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary |
For the Applicant
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
Barristers and Solicitors
405-255 Duncan Mill Road
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010125
Docket: IMM-167-00
BETWEEN:
Applicant
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND |
Respondent
Email this Content