Date: 20010828
Docket: IMM-4663-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 962
Vancouver, British Columbia, Tuesday, the 28th day of August 2001
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DAWSON
BETWEEN:
QIAN FENG LIANG
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The very narrow issues raised in this application for judicial review are whether the visa officer erred in assessing the applicant's ability to read English, and if so, whether such error affected the assessment of Mr. Liang's personal suitability.
[2] Mr. Liang applied to the Canadian Consulate in Hong Kong for permanent residence in Canada. His application was made under the independent category as an electrical engineer (NOC: 2133.0).
[3] Mr. Liang was interviewed by the visa officer who determined that Mr. Liang could speak, read and write English "with difficulty". In consequence, zero units of assessment were awarded on account of Mr. Liang's ability to read and write English.
[4] The visa officer awarded three points in respect of Mr. Liang's personal suitability. In assessing personal suitability, the visa officer said that she considered that despite Mr. Liang's decision to immigrate to Canada in 1998, he had not demonstrated initiative and motivation by improving his English abilities. The visa officer also found that since Mr. Liang had worked for the same employer since graduation from school in 1988, he lacked experience in a competitive labour market. The visa officer also stated that she took into account the fact that Mr. Liang had no international experience and had never travelled outside China.
[5] The visa officer awarded Mr. Liang a total of 66 units of assessment, four units short of the minimum number required for the issuance of an immigrant visa.
[6] With respect to the assessment of his English reading skills, Mr. Liang submitted that he should have been given full, or at least partial, marks for his answer to question 4 on the reading test given by the visa officer. The relevant passage in the reading test was as follows:
Jim Beales is a 37 year old international airline pilot. Read his account of an ideal holiday.
[...]
I'd love to stay at home for four weeks-something I never do. I'd really enjoy sleeping in my own bed, getting up when I wanted to. It would be wonderful to stay in the same time zone for a bit too-I'm always adding and subtracting hours.
Question 4 read: "What do you think ‘I'm always adding and subtracting hours' means?"
[7] Mr. Liang's response was that "I think it means he can sleeping in normal hours and in the same zone."
[8] Mr. Liang was given a score of zero out of a possible three marks for question 4.
[9] Given that Mr. Liang's score for the entire test was four out of a possible ten marks, if he had received one more mark for his answer he would have been assessed as reading "well" so as to earn two more units of assessment.
[10] Mr. Liang claimed that his answer identified two concepts, sleeping in normal hours and time zones. It was submitted that the marking guide used by the visa officer in assessing the response given to question 4 identified "time zones" as one aspect of the correct answer to this question.
[11] It was also submitted that the marking guide was fundamentally flawed and thus unreasonable because it provided that a correct answer should include a reference to the subject of the reading passage having to "change the time on his watch". However, the reading passage contained no reference to a watch and the visa officer had indicated on cross-examination that all required information was contained in the reading passage.
[12] It is generally accepted that a visa officer is in a much better position to assess language abilities than is this Court. The Court has held that a visa officer's assessment of language abilities should not be interfered with lightly. See for example: Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1080, IMM-4873-97 (July 22, 1998) (T.D.), and Yang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 F.C.T. 750, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1126 (Q.L.) (T.D.).
[13] In my opinion, the visa officer's assessment of Mr. Liang's answer to question 4 cannot be said to be clearly wrong. Because Mr. Liang answered that the pilot can sleep in normal hours and in the same time zone, instead of stating that the pilot is constantly changing time zones, it was reasonably open to the visa officer to conclude that Mr. Liang answered the question opposite to what was asked, thus demonstrating a lack of understanding.
[14] I do not conclude that the marking guide was fundamentally flawed. The visa officer on cross-examination advised that a correct answer should have made reference to the fact that, as a pilot, this person was always changing time zones and that the correct answer was that the pilot has to travel through various time zones and has to change the time whether on his watch or in his head. I am satisfied that the reference to the word "watch" in the marking guide would not act to negate a response that referred to changing time, but was silent as to a watch.
[15] In view of this conclusion that the assessment of Mr. Liang's language ability was reasonably open to the visa officer, it is unnecessary for me to consider the second issue raised by Mr. Liang.
[16] For these reasons, notwithstanding the able submissions of Mr. Liang's counsel, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither counsel posed a serious question for certification and no question will be certified.
ORDER
[17] IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
________________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4663-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Qian Feng Liang v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: August 24, 2001
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT BY: Dawson J.
DATED: August 28, 2001
APPEARANCES:
Dennis Tanack FOR APPLICANT
Mandana Namazi FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dennis Tanack FOR APPLICANT
Vancouver, British Columbia
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT
Department of Justice
Vancouver, British Columbia