CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Status in Canada |
Permanent Residents |
D'Silva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-194-02
2003 FCT 366, O'Reilly J.
28/3/03
4 pp.
Applicant, 29-year-old citizen of India, applied for permanent residence in Canada, intending to seek employment as merchandiser--Applicant assessed by visa officer, awarded three points short of required 70 points to obtain permanent residence--Officer awarded applicant three points out of possible ten points in "personal suitability" category, based on interview with applicant--Applicants evaluated in terms of ability to become established in Canada considering "adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and other similar qualities"--When officer asked applicant about studies leading to her Bachelor of Science, majoring in textiles, applicant incapable of answering questions about chemical composition and characteristics of cotton and wool-- According to officer, this reflected poorly applicant's personal suitability to become permanent resident of Canada--Whether applicant assessed based on inappropriate considerations-- Applicant's personal suitability score herein based solely on factors related to education, even though separate category for that--In case at bar, educational factors addressed both under specific rubric of education, as well as under personal suitability--For purposes of first category, assessment simply product of applicant's years of study--However, latter assessment done from different perspective, officer considering whether applicant's knowledge of her studies current and whether applicant appreciated value of education as means to successful settlement in Canada--In principle, no error in approach, did not amount to double counting-- However, applicant's personal suitability seems to have been assessed by reference only to single factor--Officer gave excessive weight to educational considerations mentioned above, particularly applicant's fading memory of specific elements on university curriculum--Officer did not appear to consider other significant factors at least equally relevant-- Visa officer's approach led to reviewable error--Judicial review allowed.