Date: 20021008
Docket: IMM-3042-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1050
Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, the 8th day of October, 2002
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
AHMADALI ESLAMI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a visa officer's decision dated May 1, 2001 denying his application for permanent residence in Canada as an independent in the intended occupation Civil Engineer (NOC 2131). The applicant alleges that the visa officer erred in the assessment of personal suitability by awarding the applicant only 3 of a possible 10 units of assessment He argues that the visa officer ignored relevant evidence, specifically facsimile correspondence, dated and forwarded May 1, 2001, to the Canadian Embassy as well as correspondence containing a formal offer of employment dated May 2, 2001. It is also alleged that the visa officer placed inordinate weight on relevant but not central factors.
[2] I have carefully considered the documentation in the motion records, the authorities referred to by counsel as well as the oral submissions and I am not persuaded that the visa officer erred.
[3] The applicant correctly states that the visa officer did not refer to the facsimile correspondence dated May 1, 2001. The applicant was interviewed on April 30, 2001 and the visa officer's decision is dated May 1, 2001. It is not clear whether or not the officer saw the correspondence. However, there is nothing contained in the correspondence that would have provided any assistance to the officer in her assessment of personal suitability. The correspondence emanated from the applicant's agent in Canada and did not contain any information that related to the applicant's ability to successfully establish himself in Canada.
[4] The correspondence dated May 2, 2001 contained an offer of employment with respect to the applicant. However, it arrived the day after the decision had been made and the refusal letter had been written. It cannot be said that the visa officer erred in failing to consider evidence that became available only after the decision had already been made.
[5] The visa officer found that the applicant was ill prepared for the interview and provided little evidence of motivation, initiative, resourcefulness or adaptability. Aside from sending his education documents to the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers for assessment and writing a letter to a friend in Toronto, he had done nothing to prepare himself for immigration to Canada. The visa officer's affidavit provides detailed, cogent reasons for her assessment of personal suitability and its contents are supported by the CAIPS notes taken during the interview.
[6] The assessment of personal suitability is a matter within the discretion of the visa officer. Consideration of the prospects of obtaining employment and some basic knowledge of Canada are relevant considerations in assessing personal suitability. It is evident that the officer considered the applicant's international experience as well as the fact that he owned a business. The funds available to the applicant are a relevant consideration but it is for the applicant to demonstrate how possession of the funds relate to his ability to successfully establish himself in Canada.
[7] The visa officer considered relevant factors and did not consider irrelevant factors. The weight assigned to those factors is within the discretion of the visa officer and the intervention of the court is not warranted. For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[8] Counsel posed no question for certification. No question is certified.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question is certified.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3042-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: AHMADALI ESLAMI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Michael Butterfield
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
Barristers & Solicitors
18 Wynford Drive
Suite 707
North York, Ontario
M3C 3S2
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20021008
Docket: IMM-3042-01
BETWEEN:
AHMADALI ESLAMI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content