Date: 20010228
Docket: IMM-917-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 128
BETWEEN:
SHAHID BHOIRA
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, India, dated January 11, 2000, refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada on the ground that he has failed to obtain the minimum units of assessment required under subparagraph 9(1)(b)(i) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 and was inadmissible under paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of India. He applied for immigration to Canada under the independent category, indicating that his intended occupation in Canada was that of Sales Promotion Administrator (CCDO 1179154/NOC 1122) or Market Research Analyst (CCDO 2311158/NOC 4163).
[3] The applicant filed for permanent residence on April 28, 1997, before the new NOC guidelines took effect. He was granted an interview and the visa officer assessed him under both the CCDO and NOC guidelines.
[4] This application for permanent residence was refused on January 11, 2000.
[5] The issue which I must determine is whether the visa officer erred in her assessment of the applicant's experience in the intended occupation.
[6] The applicant states that the visa officer, after reviewing both the written and the oral evidence, concluded that the duties as described were those of a Sales Representative, Wholesale Trade (Non-Technical) (CCDO 5177122/NOC 6411.0), rather than those of a Sales Promotion Administrator or a Market Research Analyst. The applicant submits that had the officer awarded him the points relevant to his experience as a Sales Promotion Administrator or Market Research Analyst, he would have obtained 71 or more points, enough to permit him to obtain his visa. The applicant contends that based on what he describes in his affidavit as being his own answers to the questions asked at the interview, as well as the documentary evidence submitted, the visa officer should have come to a different conclusion with respect to the experience factor.
[7] The respondent believes that the applicant is simply asking the Court to step into the shoes of the visa officer and weigh the evidence that was before her a second time. As such, he has not shown a reviewable error.
[8] In To v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 696 (unedited), the Federal Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review of the discretionary decision of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications was the same as that enumerated in Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, where MacIntyre, J. stated the following:
| "It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the court should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. |
| Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere". |
[9] In the present case, the visa officer's notes are quite clear regarding her evaluation of the applicant's experience. The applicant was given a fair chance to answer all of the visa officer's concerns regarding his experience. In fact, he was advised at least four times that the work he was describing matched that of a sales occupation and not sales promotion or market research analyst. The applicant's sole argument before this Court seems to be that he did not answer the visa officer's questions in the manner described in the notes. His only evidence of this consists of allegations in his affidavit describing in detail the way in which he answered the questions that were put to him. This is self-serving evidence that, in my opinion, does not weigh much in the balance.
[10] In my opinion, the applicant has failed to bring forth any argument that would justify this Court in reviewing the visa officer's finding with respect to his experience. It is the visa officer that was in the best position to assess this criteria and it is abundantly clear from the notes, in my view, that this assessment was carried out in good faith and in accordance with all the principles of natural justice.
[11] For the foregoing reasons, the application is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
February 28, 2001