Rollo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Rollo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-09-10
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 951
File numbers
IMM-3309-01
Decision Content
Date: 20020910
Docket: IMM-3309-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 951
Edmonton, Alberta, September 10, 2002
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
NESTOR C. ROLLO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of Jean-Marc Arsenault, visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in London, England, dated June 1, 2001, refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of the Philippines who has lived and worked in countries such as Iraq and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. His application for permanent residence in Canada was received on May 18, 2000. In that application, he requested to be assessed as a Mechanical Engineer Technician, as set out in the National Occupational Classification 2232.2.
[3] The applicant was interviewed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on May 7, 2001. By letter dated June 1, 2001, his application was refused pursuant to paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as he had obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify in his occupation. The applicant received 68 units of assessment.
Issue 1: Assessment of the Applicant's Writing Ability in English
[4] On his application, the applicant listed his language abilities in English as follows:
Speak Fluent
Read Fluent
Write Well
[5] Thus, based on the applicant's self-assessment on his application, the visa officer awarded him 8 units of assessment (3 for his ability to speak English fluently, 3 for his ability to read English fluently, and 2 for his ability to write English well).
[6] The applicant argues that the principle of fairness imposed upon the visa officer a duty to assess the applicant's ability to write in English and that the applicant should have been awarded 9 units of assessment instead of 8.
[7] In Ashraf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 127, Lutfy A.C.J. concluded that the visa officer had no duty to assess the applicant's language ability as there had been no change to the application form. I agree with Lutfy A.C.J.
[8] In my opinion, the visa officer cannot be said to have breached the principle of fairness in accepting the applicant's own self-assessment. Only when a visa officer wishes to award an inferior amount of assessment units than that requested by the applicant should he alert the applicant that his self-assessment is being questioned. This is not the case here.
Issue 2: Personal Suitability
[9] The assessment of an applicant's personal suitability is an area where visa officers have great discretion. In the case at bar, there is no indication that the visa officer exercised his discretion in an unreasonable fashion. On the contrary, given the fact that the applicant has made no effort to explore the Canadian labour market or find any prospective employers in the city in which he intends to live, let alone contact them, I find that it was quite reasonable for the visa officer to assess the applicant as he did.
[10] The applicant puts heavy emphasis on Rouleau J.'s judgment in Rizk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1083 to the effect that the applicant demonstrated "several other qualitites which clearly warranted an above-average allocation of points."
[11] In my opinion, the Rizk case is distinguishable. In Rizk, supra at para. 30, Rouleau J. noted that the applicant had:
... qualities which demonstrate an ability to adjust to Canada. He has already changed careers in the past and has already successfully adjusted to another country, the UAE. He also speaks three languages, including both of Canada's official languages. The applicant also indicated his intention to make up for his lack of knowledge in the human resources field and is perfectly willing to accept a more junior position in the interim. In fact, his cousin has offered him a job in a small supermarket. The applicant has already taken the initiative of asking a colleague about job prospects and this colleague recommended him to friends in Canada. He has sufficient capital with which to begin his establishment. Accordingly, it was clearly unreasonable to award the applicant 3 units for personal suitability in the case at bar.
[12] In the case at bar, unlike Rizk, the applicant does not have a job to fall back on in Canada nor has he taken the initiative of asking a colleague about job prospects.
[13] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3309-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: NESTOR C. ROLLO v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: EDMONTON, ALBERTA
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: SEPTEMBER 10, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Ahlam J. Balazs FOR APPLICANT
Tracy J. King FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Balazs Law Office
Edmonton, Alberta FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR RESPONDENT