Date: 19980618 Docket: IMM-883-97
BETWEEN:
VALENTINA LOMOVTSEVA
Applicant
-and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD J.:
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
[1] This is an application for judicial review to set aside the decision of a visa officer, dated January 31, 1997, not to grant an immigrant visa to the applicant.
[2] The applicant obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada, a total of 63 out of a minimum requirement of 70.
Page: 2
[3] The applicant claims that the Designated Immigration Officer did not properly exercise her discretionary power, and, in particular, the assessment of education, personal suitability, English, and, work experience.
ANALYSIS
[4] The applicant was assessed for the occupation of Pathologist, Medical, CCD02133102. At the opening of the hearing, counsel for the applicant claimed she should also have been assessed as a Research Officer, Social Welfare. However, neither the application for judicial review, the applicant's supporting affidavit or the applicant's memorandum raise it as a ground for review. The respondent objected to this new ground being raised. The hearing proceeded on the grounds set out in the applicant's memorandum as detailed above.
[5] Assessing units in relation to an applicant's qualifications for admission to Canada is within the discretion of the visa officer, and unless it is clearly exercised in error, the Court will not intervene'.
[6] I will deal with each of the grounds raised by the applicant
Shakeel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (12 May 1998), IMM-2589-97 (F.C.T.D.), MacKay J.
Page: 3
Education
[7] The visa officer did not agree that a certificate from the Ministry of Health of the USSR was equivalent to a master's degree. She considered it to be more like an internship or residency.
[8] Even if the visa officer is wrong, it would only result in one more point being awarded to the applicant.
Personal suitability
[9] The visa officer took several factors into account, some positive and others negative.
[10] The visa officer's opinion is reasonable and is not arbitrary. There are no grounds to warrant judicial interference.
English
[11] The visa officer concluded from the interview that the applicant had a fair knowledge of English but was not completely fluent in English, even if she had spent a couple of years in the United States.
[12] The language assessment was conducted during the interview and the applicant was assessed at that time. There is no reviewable error.
Page: 4
Work experience
[13] At the beginning of the interview, the visa officer advised the applicant that she would be given an opportunity to ask any questions or make any comments. The visa officer asked the applicant about her duties as a pathologist.
[14] The applicant stated at the interview that she worked once a week in family planning with outpatients, but since her work during those two years had been as a gynaecologist and medical pathologist, she could not also have full time experience as a research officer in social welfare.
[15] The applicant was awarded two units for each complete year of experience.
CONCLUSION
[16] The applicant has failed to show that the visa officer erred in the exercise of her discretion or breached the rules of procedural fairness.
[17] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
John D. Richard
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario June 18, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-883-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: Valentina Lomovtseva v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 9, 1998 REASONS FOR ORDER OF Richard, J. DATED: June 18, 1998
APPEARANCES
Mr. Emile Jean Barakat FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Edith Savard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Mr. Emile Jean Barakat FOR THE APPLICANT Montreal, Quebec
Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada