Date: 20000815
Docket: IMM-4748-99
BETWEEN:
SADRUDDIN and ROIZINA SHAMSUDDIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.:
[1] This application is for the judicial review of a decision of Bernard Leclerc, Consul, Immigration at the Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong ("the visa officer") dated November 3, 1999, refusing the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada.
1. Facts
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, applied in the assisted relative category. His intended occupation in Canada was construction estimator (NOC 2234.0) for which he received 63 units of assessments, two less than the required 65 units. He challenges this assessment only in respect of the award of 4 out of 10 units for the personal suitability factor.
[3] The visa officer awarded the applicant only 4 units for personal suitability on several grounds. He had not prepared for his integration into the Canadian job market; he displayed very limited knowledge of the Canadian construction industry; he made no efforts to inquire about the courses he would have to take in Canada in order to prepare himself to work in the desired occupation; he had not followed up with any inquiries or sent a resume to the employers on a list he obtained from a friend; and he has never lived in Canada nor has he ever lived in any country other than Pakistan.
2. Relevant Regulatory Provisions
[4] Personal suitability is defined in Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations1 ("the Regulations") as follows:
| Units of assessment shall be awarded on the basis of an interview with the person to reflect the personal suitability of the person and his dependants to become successfully established in Canada based on the person"s adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and other similar qualities. |
3. The Issues
[5] Did the visa officer take into account irrelevant considerations or acted in a procedurally unfair manner in assessing the applicant"s personal suitability?
4. The Applicant's Submissions
[6] Basically, the applicant submits that the visa officer erred in his below average assessment of the personal suitability factor in this case. He alleges that he satisfied the visa officer that he had the required experience in an occupation for which there is demand in Canada and was deemed fluent in the English language.
[7] The applicant also contends that the fact that he never travelled outside his country is an irrelevant consideration when assessing personal suitability. He maintains that even if travelling to Canada is considered relevant, the failure to indicate his concerns about the lack of travel was a breach of the duty of fairness.
[8] Furthermore, the applicant argues that concerns over the transferability of experience have been found to be erroneous by this Court. Similarly, he submits that the origin of the officer"s concern on the matter of experience is not critical to the NOC description of the intended occupation as it pertains to other types of structures besides residences. Thus, the applicant alleges that the officer"s belief that he would have to learn or relearn some specific information under the Canadian construction industry in order to work in Canada is false.
[9] The applicant also contends that, contrary to the visa officer"s conclusion in the matter, the evidence does show that he is willing to take courses to address the differences that exist between his occupation in Pakistan and in Canada. Finally, he maintains that the visa officer should have considered the fact that he presented several employment letters.
[10] At the hearing of this matter, counsel for the applicant raised all these points but focussed mostly on the fact that the visa officer placed too much emphasis on the applicant's lack of knowledge of the geography of Canada and the fact that he has never travelled to this country. He also argued forcefully that the visa officer erred when he held that the applicant's experience and knowledge of construction in Pakistan was not transferable to Canada.
5. Analysis
[11] In my view, the fact that the applicant has little knowledge of this country and that he has never been here and lived in any other country than Pakistan, is not irrelevant to personal suitability but it is not a determining factor. It is an element which deserves consideration. As a matter of logic and common sense, familiarity with Canada or successful adaptation in another country is evidence pertinent to the question of potential adaptation in Canada.
[12] As to the issue of knowledge and experience in construction in Pakistan being transferable to Canada, this matter is well covered by the visa officer in paragraphs 10 and 11 of his affidavit:
| 10. I asked Mr. Shamsuddin if he was aware of the main differences between construction in Pakistan and Canada. He answered that concrete is used in Pakistan, and that steel structures or prefabricated houses are used in Canada. I asked Mr. Shamsuddin to elaborate on any other differences. He answered that apart from that, construction was basically the same in both countries. I asked Mr. Shamsuddin to elaborate specifically on the construction of private residences. However, he had nothing to say other than they are pre-fabricated in Canada. In fact, most private residences in Canada are not pre-fabricated. It became clear that Mr. Shamsuddin knew very little about the construction techniques used in Canada or the construction industry in Canada in general. |
| 11. I suggested to Mr. Shamsuddin that he appeared to seriously underestimate the differences in the construction techniques used in Canada and Pakistan, and that a cost estimator must have a good knowledge of all aspects of construction in the country where construction is to take place in order to accurately estimate or identify costs. Mr. Shamsuddin stated that on arrival in Canada he would take several courses to adapt to the Canadian construction industry, the same way he had done in Pakistan. I asked Mr. Shamsuddin if he had made any inquiries about the courses he would need to take and where they might be offered. He answered that he had not. |
[13] The visa officer deals with the personal suitability of the applicant in paragraph 13 of his affidavit as follows:
| 13. In assessing Mr. Shamsuddin's "Personal Suitability", I considered the qualities of adaptability, resourcefulness, initiative, motivation and similar qualities. I awarded Mr. Shamsuddin four units, a below average score in this area. Mr. Shamsuddin had not prepared for his integration into the Canadian job market. He displayed very limited knowledge of the Canadian construction industry. He had made no efforts to inquire about the courses he would have to take in Canada in order to prepare himself to work in his occupation. In my opinion, this showed little initiative or motivation. I noted Mr. Shamsuddin's answers to my questions concerning his efforts to find out about life in Canada and the Canadian job market in particular. Mr. Shamsuddin showed me several sheets of information which he said he received from his immigration consultant. He also showed me a list of several employment opportunities for cost estimators which appeared to be from the job bank at Human Resources Development Canada. I asked him how he had obtained this list. He said that one of his friends had obtained the information through the Internet. Mr. Shamsuddin had not, however, followed up himself with any inquiries or sent a resume to the employers listed. He told me that he had written a letter to the Canadian Institute of Quality Surveyors but had received no answer. He told me that he was confident that he would easily find a job in his field in Canada. From my questions earlier in the interview, I was aware that Mr. Shamsuddin had never been to Canada, nor had he lived in any country other than Pakistan. In light of all the evidence before me, Mr. Shamsuddin did not appear to be very resourceful or adaptable. |
6. Disposition
[14] It is unfortunate for the applicant that he was not awarded sufficient units for personal suitability. It cannot be said, however, that the visa officer acted in bad faith, erred in law, or made a decision that was unreasonable in the circumstances.
[15] It follows that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no serious question to be certified.
OTTAWA, Ontario
August 15, 2000
Judge