Date: 20000822
Docket: IMM-5822-99
Between:
DEEPAK TRIVEDI
Plaintiff
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] The very able submissions of counsel for the plaintiff did not succeed in persuading the Court that it should intervene in the case at bar to quash the decision of the visa officer.
[2] The Court recognizes that at first sight the time allowed the plaintiff to attend the interview of October 4, 1999 was very short, since the telegram of October 1, 1999 summoning him to this interview was not received by him until October 2, 1999, especially as the plaintiff had to travel a long distance to get to New Delhi. However, according to the affidavit of the visa officer the plaintiff was summoned by letter on September 3, 1999 -- he did not deny receiving it -- and the officer's assistant telephoned him and obtained confirmation that he would be attending the interview of October 4, 1999. The plaintiff did not request a postponement -- the letter invited to do so if necessary -- and submitted no complaint about the short time allowed for this interview. The Court considers that in these circumstances the visa officer did not infringe the rules of natural justice.
[3] Additionally, there is no basis for intervening in the assessment of the plaintiff's language abilities, especially regarding spoken and written English. It was not unreasonable for the visa officer to award no points for spoken English when most of the interview had to be conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.
[4] As regards written English, even taking into account the letters sent to the immigration authorities by the plaintiff before the interview and the test he wrote at the request of the visa officer, it was not unreasonable for the latter to conclude that the plaintiff did not write English either fluently or readily -- even though he indicated in his application for permanent residence that he spoke, read and wrote English fluently. As he concluded that the plaintiff had difficulty writing English, the visa officer could not award any points for this ability.1 Even if the officer had found that the plaintiff wrote English "with ease" he would still not have been entitled to more than the two points awarded.2
[5] There is nothing in the assessment of the personality factor, for which the visa awarded the plaintiff four points, to justify the Court's intervention.
[6] The application for judicial review is accordingly dismissed.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Deepak Trivedi |
- and -
| The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration |
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: August 16, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Denault J. |
APPEARANCES:
| Sylvie Tardiff FOR THE APPLICANT |
| Christine Bernard FOR THE RESPONDENT |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Brownstein, Brownstein & Associés FOR THE APPLICANT |
Westmount, Quebec
| Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT |
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________
1 Immigration Act, Schedule I, factor 8(1)(c).
2 Immigration Act, Schedule I, factor 8(3)(b).
Email this Content