Lam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-807-97

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                  Date: 19971223

 

                                                                                                                         Docket: IMM-807-97

 

 

Between :

 

                                                                WAI KEE LAM

 

                                                                                                                                           Applicant

 

                                                                         - and -

 

 

                                              THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                                                          AND IMMIGRATION

 

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

 

 

 

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

 

 

PINARD, J. :

 

 

[1]        This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer E. M. Halston (the visa officer), dated January 23, 1997, wherein the said officer refused the applicant's application for immigration to Canada.

 

[2]        The applicant, Wai Kee Lam, resides in Lo Wai Village, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong. She made an application for permanent residence in the Independent category on November 29, 1995 with the intended occupation of "Teacher of Buddhism".

 

[3]        The visa officer explained that the applicant had been assessed in the Independent category in the occupation "Religious Education Worker (Nun)" (CCDO: 2519-114), and that her application had earned the following units of assessment pursuant to subsections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978:

Age                                                         06

                                Occupational Demand                       10

                                Specific Vocational Preparation       15

                                Experience                                            06

                                Arranged Employment                       10

                                Demographic Factor                           08

                                Education                                             00

                                English                                                   00

                                French                                                    00

                                Personal Suitability                             04

                                Total                                                      59[1]

 

 

 

[4]        The visa officer noted that despite the fact that the applicant was awarded extra points for the written offer of employment from the Fu-Hui Society Temple, she had nevertheless failed to earn the minimum required 70 units of assessment to be admitted in the Independent category. The visa officer held that the units of assessment awarded were an accurate reflection of her ability to successfully establish in Canada.

 

[5]        There was also no other occupation apparent on her application in which she might be qualified and experienced, and under which her application could be successful.

 

[6]        The visa officer concluded that the applicant was therefore a member of the class of persons who are inadmissible to Canada described in paragraph 19(1)(d) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. Her application was therefore refused.

 

[7]        The visa officer added that "I have also considered other factors in your application and find no other basis for approval".

 

[8]        Upon reading the affidavits and the material filed, and upon hearing counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the visa officer clearly provided a full and fair assessment of the applicant's application and committed no error which would vitiate the decision and warrant the intervention of this Court.

 

[9]        Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed. This is no matter for certification.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                        

 

                                                                                                               JUDGE

 

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 23, 1997