Date: 20000830
Docket: IMM-2904-99
BETWEEN:
SHAN WANG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW, J.A.
[1] The applicant Shan Wang is a citizen of China now residing in the United States. She is seeking permanent residence in Canada. She applied in the independent category under the occupation of electrical engineer. The visa officer awarded her only 63 of the 70 points required to qualify for admission to Canada, and refused her application. The applicant seeks judicial review of the visa officer's decision.
[2] Counsel for the applicant raises arguments relating to the points awarded for personal suitability, for experience, and for English language ability. I will deal with each of these in turn.
Personal suitability
[3] It is argued for the applicant that the visa officer did not act reasonably in awarding the applicant only two points for personal suitability, given her engineering credentials, her continuing efforts to improve herself through English language training, and what he argues is the adaptability she has proven by living in the United States since 1997. I am not persuaded that there is merit in that argument.
Experience
[4] It is argued for the applicant that the visa officer erred in recognizing only two years of experience as an electrical engineer, when in fact the applicant had fourteen years of experience.
[5] In this regard, the most obvious problem with the decision is that the visa officer's affidavit indicates that she determined that the applicant had three years of experience as an electrical engineer. I am unable to follow the logic by which the visa officer, having concluded that the applicant had three years of experience as an electrical engineer, awarded her points for experience that recognized only two years.
[6] There is also a second problem. My review of the CAIPS notes and the visa officer's affidavit suggests that she was concerned, and understandably so, about the apparent discrepancy between the applicant's document indicating three years experience, and the applicant's oral assertion that she had fourteen years experience. The latter was supported only by a document that the applicant admitted had been prepared by a friend as a personal favour.
[7] Material submitted on behalf of the applicant satisfies me that the apparent discrepancy was the result of a typographical error on the application form. The applicant's representative attempted to correct that error by letter sent to the office of the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo on or about January 13, 1999. There is no suggestion that this method of correcting an application form was incorrect or inappropriate.
[8] On February 1, 1999, the applicant's file was transferred to the Canadian Consulate General in Los Angeles. Her interview was held in Los Angeles on May 9, 1999. For reasons that are not explained, the correction submitted on January 13, 1999 is not reflected in the certified record.
[9] It is not clear whether or not the correction was before the visa officer. It may have been before her and unaccountably omitted from the record. Or, it may have been lost due to a clerical error within the Buffalo office or the Los Angeles office. Either way, the failure of the visa officer to consider the correction is an error.
[10] I conclude that the visa officer's assessment of points for experience cannot stand.
English language ability
[11] The visa officer awarded the applicant only two points for English language ability. This reflects the visa officer's assessment that the applicant could speak English well, but could read and write English only with difficulty. It is argued for the applicant that the visa officer's manner of testing the applicant's reading and writing abilities were unreasonable.
[12] The applicant's reading ability apparently was tested by having her read aloud the solemn declaration on the application form. It appears that she was not asked about her comprehension of the words she was asked to read. The applicant's writing ability was tested by requiring her to write something dictated by the visa officer. She was not asked to write anything that would have assisted the visa officer to determine whether she was able to communicate in written English. Based on the material in the record, I am unable to conclude that the visa officer's assessment of the applicant's English language ability was reasonable.
Conclusion
[13] The decision of the visa officer will be quashed and this application for permanent residence will be referred to another visa officer for redetermination.
(Sgd.) "K. Sharlow"
J.A.
August 30, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Shan Wang |
v.
MCI
| PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia |
| DATE OF HEARING: August 30, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR ORDER OF Sharlow, J.A. |
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Rudolph Kischer For the Applicant |
| Emilia Pech For the Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Rudolph J. Kischer
Barrister and Solicitor
| Vancouver, BC For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
| General of Canada For the Respondent |
Email this Content