Lotey v. MCI

Lotey v. MCI
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2001-08-24
Neutral citation
2001 FCT 950
File numbers
IMM-2005-00
Decision Content
Date: 20010824
Docket: IMM-2005-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 950
BETWEEN:
HARPAL SINGH LOTEY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN J.A.:
[1] This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer which dismissed the applicant's application for permanent residence. The applicant applied under the Family Business Guidelines of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Under the Guidelines, an applicant who meets the family business criteria receives 10 units of assessment under the arranged employment selection criteria in Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations. In addition, as an assisted relative, a visa officer may issue an immigrant visa if an applicant only receives 65 units of assessment under Schedule I.
[2] In the present case, the visa officer found that the applicant did not have in his work experience and aptitude, sufficient abilities to indicate that he could successfully fill the position of manager of a furniture store owned by his brother. Had the visa officer accepted that the applicant had the qualifications to be a furniture store manager, he would have received more than 65 units of assessment.
[3] The visa officer had 3 specific concerns:
1. the applicant was considerably less than fluent in the English language;
2. the applicant lacked experience with computerized inventories used in the business; and
3. the applicant lacked experience in the furniture business.
[4] As to the applicant's English language ability, the visa officer awarded the applicant 7 units, implying that the applicant spoke, read and wrote English well and was fluent in one of those attributes. It is not reasonable for the visa officer to have then expressed concern as to the applicant's ability in the English language. The visa officer says that he was generous in his assessment of the applicant's abilities in English but doubted whether the applicant's limited English would enable him to manage a store in a Canadian business environment. However, assessing the applicant's English ability as "well" and "fluent" is inconsistent with the visa officer's concern. I do not think this finding is reasonable.
[5] As to the lack of the applicant's experience in computerized inventories, the visa officer found that the applicant could not be expected to acquire computerized inventory skills within a reasonable time period. There is no doubt that the applicant conceded that he did not have computerized inventory experience. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that such skills could not be acquired within a reasonable time period. This is simply not addressed by the visa officer. The visa officer's analysis on this issue is incomplete.
[6] While I do not take issue with the visa officer's finding with respect to the applicant's lack of experience in furniture business, his conclusion was also based on the applicant's language ability and lack of computerized inventory experience. As I do not find the visa officer's assessment reasonable in those two respects, and I cannot tell what weight the visa officer placed on each of the three considerations, the decision cannot stand.
[7] The judicial review will be allowed and the matter remitted to a different visa officer for re-determination.
[8] In the visa officer's decision, the visa officer seemed to doubt that the wages offered were normal for the occupation and that there was an aspect about the job which made a relative a logical and common sense choice for the position involved. Under the Guidelines, it would seem that these are considerations that would have already been assessed by the immigration office in Canada before the matter is referred to the visa officer abroad. On re-determination, I would think that the visa officer should confine his assessment to determining whether the applicant has in his work experience and aptitude, sufficient abilities to indicate that he could successfully fill the position being offered.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
August 24, 2001
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-2005-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: HARPAL SINGH LOTEY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
DATED: FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 2001
APPEARANCES: Shoshana Green
For the Applicant
Matthew Oommen
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: GREEN & SPIEGEL
Barristers & Solicitors
121 King Street West
Suite 2200, P.O. Box 114
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20010824
Docket: IMM-2005-00
BETWEEN:
HARPAL SINGH LOTEY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Date: 20010824
Docket: IMM-2005-00
Toronto, Ontario, Friday the 24th day of August, 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rothstein
BETWEEN:
HARPAL SINGH LOTEY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The judicial review is allowed and the matter remitted to a different visa officer for re-determination.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge