Khurana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 988 (CanLII)
Ottawa, Ontario, this 20th day of September, 2002
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIMON NO?L
SUBHASH CHANDER KHURANA
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
RespondentREASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
- ? 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.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
 Teitelbaum J. in Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 751 (CanLII),  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),  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.),  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),  2 S.C.R. 817, held that the appropriate standard of review should be reasonableness simpliciter [emphasis added].
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
 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.
 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).
 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.
THIS COURT ORDERS THATThis application for judicial review is dismissed. (signed) Simon No?l Judge
STYLE OF CAUSE : SUBHASH CHANDER KHURANA and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATIONPLACE OF HEARING : Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING : September 17, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER : THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE SIMON NO?L
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