Ottawa, Ontario, November 10, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1] Mr. Mohammad-Hassan Bagheri-Sadr, an experienced pilot, applied for permanent residence in Canada from Iran. In his application, he claimed proficiency in both English and French. In respect of his English skills, he supplied the results of a test recognized under Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) guidelines. Regarding his proficiency in French, he filed results from a test conducted by Berlitz, an organization not recognized by CIC.
[2] The officer who reviewed Mr. Bagheri-Sadr’s application gave him zero points for his French skills. As a result, the officer scored Mr. Bagheri-Sadr’s application at 61 points, six points below the threshold for success. Mr. Bagheri-Sadr submits that the officer should have considered the evidence he provided in support of his French language skills and awarded him at least some points in that category. He asks me to order another officer to reconsider his application.
[3] I can find no basis for overturning the officer’s decision and must, therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
II. Analysis
[4] There is only one issue: Was the officer’s decision unreasonable given her failure to consider the Berlitz language test?
[5]
In
order to be scored points for language proficiency, applicants must either file
the results of a test from a designated body or provide other written evidence
of their proficiency (Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227, s. 79(1)). Applicants are informed that test results from
non-designated bodies will not be considered. However, immigration officers
must consider other written evidence of proficiency, such as “official
documentation of education and work experience in English, an explanation of
how the applicant commonly uses English and a description detailing [his or]
her training in English” (Bellido v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 452). For example, an officer
must consider an applicant’s high school diploma showing high grades in English
courses and a diploma from a language school indicating successful completion
of a course of study in English (Gidikova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2007 FC 1178).
[6] Mr. Bagheri-Sadr submits that the officer erred by not considering his Berlitz test and by failing to explain why he should not be scored any points for his proficiency in French. In addition, he suggests that the officer should have considered his extensive experience as a pilot and inferred that he must have some level of proficiency in French enabling him to take off from, and land in, airports around the world.
[7] Mr. Bagheri-Sadr was specifically requested to provide official language test results to support his application. He failed to do so. As I read the Regulations, he had the option of obtaining official results (as he had done for his English skills) or providing some other written evidence of proficiency. The officer informed Mr. Bagheri-Sadr of the tests that were required as proof of language proficiency, yet he failed to obtain the necessary documentation.
[8] The officer stated that she reviewed the evidence on file but found that it was “insufficient to demonstrate that you meet the Canadian language benchmarks at the levels stated”. In the circumstances, this is an adequate explanation for not scoring Mr. Bagheri-Sadr any points for his French skills.
[9] Finally, Mr. Bagheri-Sadr had to provide official test results or other written evidence. It was not open to the officer merely to infer a level of proficiency in French based on Mr. Bagheri-Sadr’s flying experience.
III.Conclusion and Disposition
[10] In my view, Mr. Bagheri-Sadr was given a fair chance to supply proper documentation of his French language skills. He was specifically asked to provide an official test and invited to consult the applicable guidelines for more information. In rejecting his application, the officer explained why his evidence was insufficient. I cannot find that the officer’s decision was unreasonable. I must dismiss this application for judicial review. No question of general importance arises.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;
2. No question of general importance is stated.
Annex “A”
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
Proficiency in English and
French (20 points) 79. (1) A
skilled worker must specify in their application for a permanent resident
visa which of English or French is to be considered their first official
language in Canada and which is to be considered their second official
language in Canada and must (a) have their proficiency in
those languages assessed by an organization or institution designated under
subsection (3); or (b) provide other evidence in writing of their proficiency in those languages.
|
Règlement sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés , DORS/2002-227
Compétence en
français et en anglais (20 points) 79. (1) Le travailleur qualifié indique dans sa demande de visa de
résident permanent la langue — français ou anglais — qui doit être considérée
comme sa première langue officielle au Canada et celle qui doit être
considérée comme sa deuxième langue officielle au Canada et : a) soit fait évaluer ses
compétences dans ces langues par une institution ou organisation désignée aux
termes du paragraphe (3); b) soit fournit une autre preuve écrite de sa compétence dans ces langues.
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1510-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: BAGHERI-SADR v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 4, 2009
APPEARANCES:
|
Samuel Baker |
|
|
Sally thomas |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
BAKER & ASSOCIATES Toronto, Ontario
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |