Date: 20001006
Docket: IMM-1072-00
BETWEEN:
MING GE GAO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer in Hong Kong dated the 1st day of February, 2000, in which he refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The applicant, a resident of the People's Republic of China, a chemical engineer by profession, applied to come to Canada as a permanent resident under the independent category. Following the interview he was assessed as having a total of 68 points, two shy of the required 70.
[3] Counsel for the applicant suggests that the visa officer erred in law by considering the language proficiency in determining the personal suitability factor raising the double counting issue; he also submits that the visa officer failed with respect to the duty of fairness owed to the applicant by not advising him of his concerns regarding his personal suitability and provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to these concerns; was the visa officer under an obligation to conduct a more broader evaluation with respect to personal suitability when only three points were allowed under a possible ten.
[4] There is no doubt that throughout the initial interview the visa officer was concerned with the applicant's efficiency in English and concluded that a further interview was required. A second interview took place on the 2nd of November 1999 and the following comments are disclosed in the CAIPS notes: English: not fluent; has a great deal of difficulty of understanding me; I require an interpreter: reading test "not bad on question submitted"; two good answers out of three; ability to write: good; he speaks English labouriously; great deal of difficulty during the interview; speaks English with difficulty; allows two points for his English.
[5] It is evident when considering his personal suitability, his proficiency in English was considered but I am not convinced that it amounted to double counting. The visa officer considered that the lack of fluency would create problems with respect to this applicant being successful in obtaining employment; this ancillary reference to the language skills was to assist in determining adaptability. The visa officer concludes that the applicant lacks initiative and motivation. He had not looked into employment in Canada nor had he made any attempt to familiarize himself with this country. When asked where Vancouver was, his answer was Victoria; when asked how much money he expected to earn as a chemical engineer he suggested $20,000 per annum Cdn. Apparently, to the visa officer this demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the reality of Canadian life. These were the underlying determining factors in granting this applicant only three points for suitability; not double counting.
[6] The Canadian Council of Professional Engineers indicate in their circular of February 1999 that upon arriving in Canada a prospective engineer must be licensed to practice in his profession. One must acquire at least 12 months of work in Canada and then submit to several technical examinations before a license is issued. It should be noted that these exams are offered in the English language and since the visa officer had some problems with the applicant's prospects to overcome the language barrier at an interview for a position for employment, further mitigates his opportunity of qualifying in this country for employment and successfully writing engineering examinations.
[7] With respect to the issue of lack of fairness, that the visa officer having failed to advise the applicant of his concerns about the applicant's personal suitability, the uncontroverted evidence is provided by the visa officer in his affidavit wherein he states as follows:
| In this case I expressed my concern to the applicant regarding his poor English language skills and his lack of initiative and noted this my CAIPS log. My concerns were not allied by the subsequent response. |
In paragraph 10 he states as follows:
| I called on an interpreter for assistance during the interview as I found it difficult to understand the applicant because he expressed himself using words rather than phrases, hesitated and repeated himself often. It is my usual practice to have the interpreter to interpret my reasons for refusal to the applicant and I recall I did so in this case. |
[8] Reviewing this application there are findings of fact that this applicant had never been to Canada, had not researched employment or housing in this country nor was he familiar with the Canadian labour market needs.
[9] On this issue as to whether or not the visa officer was under an obligation to conduct a more broader evaluation with respect to personal suitability, I am satisfied that this suggestion is without merit.
[10] For all of the above reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed. I failed to request counsel if they had a question to be certified as a serious question of general importance. I am satisfied, never the less, that this is not a case for certification since the issues of this application are fact specific.
(Sgd.) "P. Rouleau"
Judge
October 6, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Ming Ge Gao |
v.
MCI
| PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia |
| DATE OF HEARING: October 3, 2000 |
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU, J.
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Dennis Tanack For the Applicant |
| Ms. E. Pech For the Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dennis Tanack
Barrister and Solicitor
| Vancouver, BC For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
| General of Canada For the Respondent |
Email this Content