Date: 20030410
Docket: IMM-3636-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 424
Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, the 10th day of April, 2003
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
DALJEET SINGH RANDHAWA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Randhawa is 33 years old and a citizen of India. In 1999, he applied for permanent residency in Canada. His application was reviewed by a visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi in 2001. The officer interviewed Mr. Randhawa and awarded him 67 points, just short of the 70 points required for granting the application. At the end of the interview, the officer informed him that his application was unsuccessful. That conclusion was confirmed by letter.
[2] The letter gave a breakdown of the points awarded to Mr. Randhawa under the various categories set out in the Immigration Regulations, 1978, Schedule I. Mr. Randhawa takes issue only with the points awarded in relation to his personal suitability to become a permanent resident of Canada. The officer awarded him 5 points out of a possible 10. The letter did not explain how those points were assessed. Mr. Randhawa argues that the failure to give adequate reasons for his personal suitability score amounted to a breach of the duty that the officer owed him to treat him fairly.
[3] According to the Immigration Regulations, 1978, points for personal suitability are arrived at after interviewing the applicant and assessing his or her ability to "become successfully established in Canada based on the person's adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and other similar qualities" (Schedule I, item 9).
[4] Reasons do not need to be contained in a letter. They may be set out in the officer's notes: Zheng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 31 (QL) (T.D.), at para. 16 and 17. Indeed, as mentioned, the letter addressed to Mr. Randhawa did not explain the basis for his personal suitability score. However, the officer's notes did contain relevant comments. The notes, in French, state:
Le requérant a une connaissance générale du Canada. Il connaît peu de choses de sa ville de destination, Toronto. Il a fait de la recherche d'emploi et a envoyé son CV à des employeurs. Cinq points lui ont été accordés pour les qualités personnelles. Les raisons du refus ont été expliquées au requérant et il a eu l'opportunité de faire des commentaires.
À mon avis, les points obtenus par le requérant reflète bien ses chances de s'établir avec succès au Canada et il n'y a pas lieu d'utiliser de façon positive la discrétion. Le requérant a fait peu d'effort pour améliorer ses chances de s'établir avec succès au Canada.
[5] The first paragraph contains the following points:
. the applicant has a general knowledge of Canada;
. he does not know much about Toronto, the city he plans to move to;
. he sought employment and sent his résumé to some employers;
. the applicant was given 5 points for personal suitability;
. the reasons why his application was turned down were explained to the applicant and he was given a chance to respond.
[6] The second paragraph of the officer's notes addresses primarily the question whether Mr. Randhawa's application should be granted notwithstanding that he fell short of the regulatory requirement of 70 points. That discretion is provided for in the Immigration Regulations, 1978, s.11(3)(a). An officer may issue an immigrant visa in circumstances where the tabulated score does not really reflect the applicant's chances of becoming successfully established in Canada.
[7] The second paragraph of the officer's notes may be summarized as follows:
. the applicant's score properly reflects his chances of becoming successfully established in Canada;
. there is no reason to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant;
. the applicant made little effort to improve his chances of successfully settling in Canada.
[8] While these observations relate primarily to the exercise of discretion under the Regulations, they are also relevant to the issue of personal suitability because both matters involve consideration of the applicant's likelihood of successful establishment in Canada.
[9] In my view, the officer's notes contain adequate reasons for Mr. Randhawa's score in the personal suitability category. Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance was proposed for certification and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED THAT this application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is stated.
"James W. O'Reilly"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-3636-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: DALJEET SINGH RANDHAWA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2003
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: O'REILLY J.
DATED: THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Michael Butterfield
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
North York, ON
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030410
Docket: IMM-3636-01
BETWEEN:
DALJEET SINGH RANDHAWA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT