Date: 20001109
Docket: IMM-2829-99
Between :
GURDARSHAN SINGH DHILLON
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of Gisèle Gaudet, Second Secretary (Immigration) at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, dated March 18, 1999, determining that he did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the Independent category.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Punjab, India. He submitted his application for permanent residence under the Independent category and sought to be assessed as a Computer Hardware Specialist.
[3] The applicant was informed by letter dated March 18, 1999, that he had received insufficient units of assessment for immigration to Canada. The visa officer had awarded zero units of assessment for the English language component and one point for the personal suitability component. In her decision, the visa officer stated:
| You indicated on your application that you speak, read and write English fluently. However, my assessment revealed that you speak, read and write English with much difficulty and will encounter major problems in establishing yourself for a job in Canada. Therefore, no units have been awarded for language. |
[4] The first issue raised by the applicant involves the visa officer's evaluation of his language abilities. As previously indicated, the applicant noted on his application form for permanent residence that he spoke, read and wrote English "fluently". The visa officer assessed the quality of the applicant's English language skills as "with difficulty" for the following reasons:
| . . . After speaking with the Applicant at interview, it became apparent to me that he was unable to communicate fluently in the English language. I noted, for example, that his answers to my questions did not always match the questions asked. Likewise, he was unable to provide any answer at all to some questions and had great difficulty in providing an explanation in English of his work experience. . . . |
[5] In cross-examination, the visa officer stated that the interview, which should normally have taken approximately 45 minutes, took more than an hour and a half due to the difficulty with which it proceeded. All of this provides a reasonable basis for her determination that the applicant's English oral abilities were "with difficulty". Further, the visa officer indicated that she had given the applicant a reasonable amount of time to complete the writing sample, and that he had some difficulty completing it. In light of the visa officer's overall conclusions with respect to the applicant's language abilities, I do not find it was unreasonable for her to have concluded that the applicant's writing abilities were "with difficulty".
[6] In my opinion, the visa officer's decision to award the applicant zero points for English has a strong evidentiary basis and there is no evidence that it was based on irrelevant considerations or made in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
[7] The second issue raised by the applicant involves the visa officer's evaluation of his personal suitability. Contrary to the applicant's submission, I believe that the visa officer's central consideration in assessing the applicant's personal suitability was his failure to improve his language skills as an element relating to his initiative and motivation. This conclusion stems from the visa officer's Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes:
| PI HAS DEMONSTRATED LITTLE MOTIVATION AND INITIATIVE. HAS DONE NOTHING TO IMPROVE OR UPGRADE HIS LANGUAGE ABILITIES SINCE HE HAS SUBMITTED HIS APPLICATION TWO YEARS AGO. |
[8] In my opinion, the visa officer based her conclusions on the applicant's personal suitability on both the applicant language skills, in the context of his successful establishment in Canada, and his lack of motivation and initiative in upgrading these skills during the two years between his application and his interview.
[9] For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the visa officer's award of units in both the language and the personal suitability factors were reasonably founded on the evidence before her. Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 9, 2000