Khurana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 988 (CanLII) | Cases | Cases

Former Department of Justice
- Canada Immigration Lawyer

(905) 451-1550

Canadian Immigration Cases

Search:

Date: 20020920

 

Docket: IMM-4834-00

 

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 988

 

Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of September, 2002

 

Present:          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NOL                              

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

                                                SUBHASH CHANDER KHURANA

 

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

 

 

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

 

                                                                                                                                       Respondent

 

 

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

 

[1]                This is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, in respect of a decision by visa officer V.E. Campbell, at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, India, dated July 6, 2000, refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence.

 

 

 

 

 

 


FACTS

  

[2]                The applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada on or about December 16, 1997.

[3]                In his application, the applicant indicated Public Relations Officer as his intended occupation.

[4]                In his application, the applicant indicated that he had the ability to speak, read and write French well. After being called for an interview, the applicant amended his application to indicate that he did not have any ability in french.

[5]                The applicant was interviewed on June 8, 2000 and after studying the documentation, in relation with the Occupational category Public Relations Officer (NOC-5124.0), the visa officer informed the applicant that he did not have the qualification and the experience to qualify under the said category.

[6]                The visa officer then suggested that the applicant should be assessed against the requirements of Executive Assistant (NOC-1222.0) and he agreed.

[7]                Following the assessment as Executive Assistant, the applicant totalled up 61 points which was not sufficient to obtain the permanent residence (70 points).

[8]                Following receipt of the decision, the applicant represented by a consultant, questioned the analysis of the application and the visa officer reviewed the documentation and maintained the decision.

[9]                In support of their submissions, both parties filed affidavits which in essence were in contradiction on whether the applicant had agreed that he did not have the pertinent work experience for as a Public Relations Officer.

[10]            In the affidavit signed by the visa officer in support of the Respondent's position, the assessment of the applicant as Public Relations Officer was included, which indicated that 58 points were granted therefore not sufficient to obtain the 70 points requirement.

THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY BOTH PARTIES

[11]            The applicant argued the following:

  •                      That he was not given the opportunity to explain to the visa officer his experience as a Public Relations Officer.
  •                      That if the opportunity would have been given, he would have been able to obtain points that would have permitted him to obtain the 70 points requirement.

                     That it was an error not to recognize his work experience since the applicant felt that a University degree to become a Public Relations Officer was usually not required.

[12]            The respondent presented the following arguments:

                     The visa officer did assess the work experience of the applicant in relation to a Public Relations Officer and explained to the applicant that he did not have the qualifications nor the experience for the said job and that the applicant had agreed that he did not have the experience and that he wanted to be assessed as an Executive Assistant.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[13]            Teitelbaum J. in Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 751 (CanLII), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1125 (QL), 2001 FCT 751 at paragraph 19:

The appropriate standard of review for this type of decision - a discretionary one by a visa officer - is the same as that enunciated by McIntyre J. in the Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, 1982 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at pp. 7 - 8:

 

It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts 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.

 

In Wang v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] F.C.J. No 95 (IMM-2813-00, January 25, 2001), Rouleau J., referring to the above cited passage as well as to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Baker v. Canada (M.C.I.), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, held that the appropriate standard of review should be reasonableness simpliciter [emphasis added].


 

Accordingly the standard of review in this case is reasonableness simpliciter.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

[14]            After a complete review of all the documentation, I see no reason why I should question the visa officer's version that he did explain to the applicant his failure to meet the requirements of a Public Relations Officer because of his lack of qualification and experience and also that the applicant had agreed to be assessed as an Executive Assistant. The analysis done by the visa officer and his affidavit demonstrate clearly the approach he followed and the events that occurred during the interview of the applicant.

[15]            In any event if I were to agree with the argument that the opportunity was not given to the applicant to explain his work experience as a Public Relations Officer (which is not the case) nevertheless, his experience was assessed by the visa officer in relation to the said occupational category (see analysis and decision of the visa officer (Tribunal Record (T.R.) p. 133 and p. 12 and paragraphs 11, 19, 21 of the affidavit of V.E. Campbell dated November 14, 2000).


[16]            I read all the material that the applicant presented to the visa officer and I also concur with the visa officer's decision that the applicant did not have any work experience that could be associated to a Public Relations Officer. As a matter of fact, Counsel for the applicant was only able to refer me to a letter from his employer which indicated that an allowance was given to the applicant to buy newspapers to justify an experience related to a Public Relations Officer (see: T.R. p. 97). In my view, this does not demonstrate experience pertinent to a Public Relations Officer.

[17]            I see no reason to intervene in this matter.

[18]            Having had the opportunity, counsel did not recommend certification of a question of serious general importance.    I do not propose to certify a serious question.

                                               ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS THAT

This application for judicial review is dismissed.

      (signed) Simon Nol         

Judge


                        FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                    TRIAL DIVISION

   NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

                                                     

DOCKET:                  IMM-4834-00

STYLE OF CAUSE :                                     SUBHASH CHANDER KHURANA and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                           

  

PLACE OF HEARING :                               Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING :                                  September 17, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER :                         THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIMON NOL


DATED :                   September 20, 2002

  

APPEARANCES :

Mr. Max Chaudhary                                          FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Jeremiah Eastman                                     FOR THE RESPONDENT

  

SOLICITORS OF RECORD :

Mr. Max Chaudhary                                          FOR THE APPLICANT

Chaudhary Law Office                                                

North York, Ontario

Morris Rosenberg                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                 

Toronto, Ontario