Date: 20091110
Docket: IMM-1510-09
Citation: 2009 FC 1143
Ottawa, Ontario, November 10, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD-HASSAN
BAGHERI-SADR
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr.
Mohammad-Hassan Bagheri-Sadr, an experienced pilot, applied for permanent
residence in Canada from Iran. In his
application, he claimed proficiency in both English and French. In respect of
his English skills, he supplied the results of a test recognized under
Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) guidelines. Regarding his proficiency
in French, he filed results from a test conducted by Berlitz, an organization
not recognized by CIC.
[2]
The
officer who reviewed Mr. Bagheri-Sadr’s application gave him zero points for
his French skills. As a result, the officer scored Mr. Bagheri-Sadr’s
application at 61 points, six points below the threshold for success. Mr.
Bagheri-Sadr submits that the officer should have considered the evidence he
provided in support of his French language skills and awarded him at least some
points in that category. He asks me to order another officer to reconsider his
application.
[3]
I
can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision and must, therefore,
dismiss this application for judicial review.
II.
Analysis
[4]
There
is only one issue: Was the officer’s decision unreasonable given her failure to
consider the Berlitz language test?
[5]
In
order to be scored points for language proficiency, applicants must either file
the results of a test from a designated body or provide other written evidence
of their proficiency (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227, s. 79(1)). Applicants are informed that test results from
non-designated bodies will not be considered. However, immigration officers
must consider other written evidence of proficiency, such as “official
documentation of education and work experience in English, an explanation of
how the applicant commonly uses English and a description detailing [his or]
her training in English” (Bellido v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 452). For example, an officer
must consider an applicant’s high school diploma showing high grades in English
courses and a diploma from a language school indicating successful completion
of a course of study in English (Gidikova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2007 FC 1178).
[6]
Mr.
Bagheri-Sadr submits that the officer erred by not considering his Berlitz test
and by failing to explain why he should not be scored any points for his
proficiency in French. In addition, he suggests that the officer should have
considered his extensive experience as a pilot and inferred that he must have
some level of proficiency in French enabling him to take off from, and land in,
airports around the world.
[7]
Mr.
Bagheri-Sadr was specifically requested to provide official language test
results to support his application. He failed to do so. As I read the
Regulations, he had the option of obtaining official results (as he had done
for his English skills) or providing some other written evidence of
proficiency. The officer informed Mr. Bagheri-Sadr of the tests that were
required as proof of language proficiency, yet he failed to obtain the
necessary documentation.
[8]
The
officer stated that she reviewed the evidence on file but found that it was
“insufficient to demonstrate that you meet the Canadian language benchmarks at
the levels stated”. In the circumstances, this is an adequate explanation for
not scoring Mr. Bagheri-Sadr any points for his French skills.
[9]
Finally,
Mr. Bagheri-Sadr had to provide official test results or other written
evidence. It was not open to the officer merely to infer a level of proficiency
in French based on Mr. Bagheri-Sadr’s flying experience.
III.Conclusion
and Disposition
[10]
In
my view, Mr. Bagheri-Sadr was given a fair chance to supply proper
documentation of his French language skills. He was specifically asked to
provide an official test and invited to consult the applicable guidelines for
more information. In rejecting his application, the officer explained why his
evidence was insufficient. I cannot find that the officer’s decision was
unreasonable. I must dismiss this application for judicial review. No question
of general importance arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Annex “A”
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227
Proficiency in English and
French (20 points)
79. (1) A
skilled worker must specify in their application for a permanent resident
visa which of English or French is to be considered their first official
language in Canada and which is to be considered their second official
language in Canada and must
(a) have their proficiency in
those languages assessed by an organization or institution designated under
subsection (3); or
(b) provide other evidence in
writing of their proficiency in those languages.
|
Règlement sur l’immigration et la
protection des réfugiés , DORS/2002-227
Compétence en
français et en anglais (20 points)
79. (1) Le travailleur qualifié indique dans sa demande de visa de
résident permanent la langue — français ou anglais — qui doit être considérée
comme sa première langue officielle au Canada et celle qui doit être
considérée comme sa deuxième langue officielle au Canada et :
a) soit fait évaluer ses
compétences dans ces langues par une institution ou organisation désignée aux
termes du paragraphe (3);
b) soit fournit une autre
preuve écrite de sa compétence dans ces langues.
|
Email this Content