Date: 20000919
Docket: IMM-2846-00
BETWEEN:
PURAN TOLANI
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for an extension of time.
[2] This is a re-application following a decision by a Prothonotary dated July 19, 2000.
[3] In his decision of July 19, 2000, the Prothonotary Giles said at paragraph 15:
| "Under a heading "(3) Arguable Case" Tolani states - should have received 10 points under occupational factor". He gives no basis for this statement but it may be there is some evidence that extra points should have been awarded. Because of the lack of background information in both the Application and the Respondent's submissions, I am unable to see that the delay in applying for judicial review has been excused or that there is an arguable case by a proper party. I am therefore going to dismiss the motion but with leave to reapply within three weeks on better evidence." |
[4] On August 15, 2000, the Applicant filed a new motion in which the Affidavit of Puran Tolani is identical to the Affidavit in the first motion.
[5] In my view, the Applicant has not explained satisfactorily the entire delay.
[6] The Applicant suggests that he should have been assessed under the previous CCDO system of classification occupations.
[7] The Applicant's application was received on September 30th, 1998, and the CCDO system had been replaced by the NOC system as of May 1st, 1997.
[8] As this was argued by the Respondent, all application for permanent residence received on or after May 1st, 1997, are to be assessed using the NOC; the Immigration Regulations, 1978 provides at section 2.03(1):
| 2.03(1) for the purpose of an assessment by a visa officer under section 8, in respect of an Application for a visa that was made under section 9 of the Act before May 1st, 1997, and was still pending on that date, the applicable factors set out in Schedule 1 as that Schedule read immediately before May 1st, 1997 shall apply. |
[9] It is also clear that the Applicant was awarded the five units of assessment for having an assisted relative, as was assessed out of a required 65 units of assessment for the issuance of a visa.
[10] In my view, the Applicant failed to demonstrate that he has an arguable case.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
[11] This motion for an extension of time is dismissed.
"Pierre Blais"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
September 19, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-2846-00 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: PURAN TOLANI |
Appellant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER BY: BLAIS J. |
DATED: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Puran Tolani
For the Appellant,
on his own behalf
Neeta Logsetty
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Puran Tolani
Lot-21 954 Preston Manor Drive
Mississauga, Ontario
L5V 2L5
For the Appellant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000919
Docket: IMM-2846-00
Between:
PURAN TOLANI
Appellant
-and-
| THE MINISTER |
OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
AND ORDER