Date: 19990609
Docket: IMM-1748-98
BETWEEN:
SHARON KAUR DHILLION
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
McGILLIS J.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a visa officer's decision dated March 2, 1998 denying her application for permanent residence status in Canada. The applicant had applied for permanent residence as an independent applicant in the occupation "Executive Secretary" (CCDO- 4111-111).
[2] In his written and oral submissions, counsel for the applicant indicated that the applicant disputed the visa officer's assessment solely in relation to Factors 4 and 9 in Schedule I to the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, as amended, namely experience and suitability. In her decision refusing the application, the visa officer awarded the applicant 60 units of assessment, including "00" points for experience and "03" points for suitability. The visa officer advised the applicant at the interview that, even if she gave her the maximum six points for experience, the applicant would not meet the required 70 point threshold limit.
[3] The principal question to be determined on the application is whether the visa officer's decision to award the applicant "03" points for suitability was patently unreasonable. Indeed, counsel for the applicant conceded during the course of the hearing that the application must fail unless the applicant succeeds on this issue.
[4] In dealing with the question of suitability in her decision, the visa officer stated as follows:
| I have awarded you three (3) units of assessment for personal suitability. You have been living in Canada since January 19991. You had student permits but failed to attend school. You have not taken any courses to improve or upgrade your secretarial skills. You have no work permit but you claimed to have been working illegally in Canada for more than four years. You showed low initiative and motivation at your interview. Your main concern for applying for permanent residence was to gain legal status. |
[5] A review of the visa officer's decision indicates that she provided clear and unambiguous reasons in support of her assessment of the applicant's suitability. In my opinion, her discretionary decision cannot be said to be patently unreasonable. In the circumstances, my intervention in this matter is not warranted.
[6] The application is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
"D. McGillis"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
June 9, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-1748-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: SHARON KAUR DHILLION |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: McGILLIS J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1999
| APPEARANCES: Mr. Robert Gertler |
For the Applicant
| Mr. Stephen H. Gold |
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Robert Gertler
| Barrister & Solicitor |
| 5650 Yonge Street, Suite 1500 |
| Toronto (North York), Ontario |
| M2M 4G3 |
For the Applicant
| Morris Rosenberg |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990609
Docket: IMM-1748-98
Between:
| SHARON KAUR DHILLION |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT