Date: 20020509
Docket: IMM-4260-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 535
Ottawa, Ontario, Thursday the 9th day of May 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
B E T W E E N:
SATBIR SINGH HARI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DAWSON J.
[1] A visa officer concluded that Mr. Hari did not meet the requirements for entry to Canada as a permanent resident in the independent category because he obtained insufficient units of assessment under subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 ("Regulations"). The visa officer awarded Mr. Hari 67 units of assessment, three units short of the 70 units of assessment prima facie required by subparagraph 9(1)(b)(i) of the Regulations. At issue in this proceeding is the propriety of the visa officer's assessment of only five units of assessment for personal suitability.
[2] On Mr. Hari's behalf it was argued that in awarding five units of assessment, the visa officer erred by "double counting" the low occupational demand for Mr. Hari's intended occupation by importing that consideration into the assessment of personal suitability.
[3] I can find no evidentiary basis in the record for this submission. The argument is, in my view, based upon a non-contextual reading of the visa officer's Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System ("CAIPS") notes. Further, the officer was entitled to consider that Mr. Hari was overconfident and inflexible about finding employment in his intended occupation in the context of assessing or elucidating Mr. Hari's adaptability as that related to his potential to become successfully established in Canada. See, for example, Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1080 (T.D.) at paragraph 6.
[4] It was further argued on Mr. Hari's behalf that the visa officer denied him procedural fairness by failing to ask sufficient questions to illuminate Mr. Hari's level of personal suitability.
[5] The CAIPS notes and Mr. Hari's affidavit reflect that the visa officer asked Mr. Hari where he planned to settle in Canada, why he planned to settle in Toronto, what Mr. Hari knew about Toronto, what he intended to do in Toronto, and what he knew about the job market in Toronto. Mr. Hari's affidavit notes that the visa officer asked him if he had any relatives in Toronto. Additionally, the visa officer swore that at the end of the interview he advised Mr. Hari how his assessment had been conducted, telling Mr. Hari that before personal suitability had been considered the assessment totalled 62 units. The visa officer then explained briefly what considerations went into personal suitability, namely whether an applicant is able to demonstrate initiative, resourcefulness, motivation and adaptability. In response to those comments Mr. Hari told the officer that he was a supervisor.
[6] On that evidence, I am satisfied that the visa officer asked sufficient questions and otherwise afforded a sufficient opportunity to Mr. Hari to enable him to meet the burden he bore to establish his admissibility.
[7] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
[8] Counsel did not ask that any question be certified.
ORDER
[9] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question is certified.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4260-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Satbir Singh Hari and the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 30, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DAWSON
DATED: May 9, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. M. Max Chaudhary FOR APPLICANT
Mr. Greg George FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Chaudhary Law Offices FOR APPLICANT
Barristers and Solicitors
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content