Date: 19981008
Docket: IMM-3013-98
BETWEEN:
GERRY SHARONI
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 rendered by visa officer Louis Dumas ("the visa officer") at the Canadian Embassy in Tel Aviv on June 1, 1998.
1- Facts
[2] At the outset, it should be noted that on February 6, 1997, another visa officer at the same embassy had assessed and denied a previous application for permanent residence from this applicant. On March 14, 1997, the applicant filed an application for judicial review of that first decision which was dismissed by me on February 16, 1998, after a full hearing in Montréal, Québec. In the first application, the visa officer had granted 33 units of assessment out of 70. In the second application, the visa officer awarded only 30 units. The facts are identical in both applications. Both applications were for the occupation of janitor. In the first application, the applicant's name was Gershon Sharoni and in the second one it was Gerry Sharoni. The first one was conducted in French and the second one in English. It is by coincidence that both judicial review applications were heard by the same judge.
[3] An additional argument submitted by the applicant on this second application is that Immigration Program Manager Louis Dumas acted illegally when he purported to be a visa officer. However, the affidavit evidence filed at the hearing shows very clearly that Mr. Dumas is a visa officer pursuant to sections 2 and 109 of the Immigration Act and that he has been a visa officer since January 1990. However, he is also an Immigration Program Manager.
[4] The applicant contends in this second application that the visa officer erred in law because he failed to exercise his discretion pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Immigration Regulations. That subsection enables the visa officer to issue a visa to a person who has not been awarded the required number of units if he is satisfied that there are good reasons why the number of units does not reflect the immigrant's chances of becoming successfully established in Canada.
[5] There is no evidence that the visa officer exercised his discretion in bad faith or in disregard of pertinent evidence. He decided that the number of units of assessment awarded to the applicant accurately reflects his economic prospects in Canada. There are no openings for the position of janitor in Canada that cannot be filled by Canadians. It is well established by the jurisprudence that the Court cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the visa officer under these circumstances.
[6] Consequently, the application is denied.
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 8, 1998
Judge