Chun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-4209-98

Date: 19990610

Docket: IMM-4209-98

BETWEEN:

     FANG JING CHUN,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

DENAULT, J.

[1]      In spite of the able argument by counsel for the Applicant, this Court has not been persuaded that the visa officer has committed any reviewable error in dismissing the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.

[2]      Having interviewed the Applicant on his experience as a mechanical engineer, it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to conclude that he did not have any work experience as a mechanical engineer but rather as a mechanical engineering technologist

[3]      With respect to the Applicant's ability to write English, while his written test (p. 14 of the Respondent's Record) seems to indicate that, in my opinion, he writes "well but not fluently", it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to find that he "did poorly", i.e. that he wrote English with difficulty. It is not the role of the Court to substitute its opinion to that of the visa officer.

[4]      As to the assessment of the Applicant's personal suitability, this Court is satisfied that the visa officer, by awarding 4 points on a possibility of 10, had regard to a number of considerations listed in her CAIPS notes (p.59 & 60 of the Respondent's Record), with respect to the Applicant's adaptability, motivation, initiative and resourcefulness. The visa officer did not err in considering, amongst other factors, that the Applicant ". . . has demonstrated sufficient initiative and motivation as he did not make an effort to improve his English language skills to a functional level in preparation for his immigration to Canada". I accept, as Madam Justice Reed did in Cui v. M.C.I., IMM-1269-98, dated December 8, 1998, that there is a difference between a person's language ability and his/her efforts to learn a language, and that, in the circumstances of the case, it did not constitute double counting.

     ORDER

     This application is dismissed.

                             _________________________

                                     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

June 10, 1999.