Savin v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-4712-94
Cullen J.
11/10/95
6 pp.
Judicial review of denial of application for permanent resident status-Applicant, Romanian, seeking to enter Canada as member of independent class-Although applicant attaining minimum number of points necessary for acceptance as independent immigrant (70), visa officer exercised negative discretion under Immigration Regulations, 1978, s. 11(3) and recommended applicant not be accepted-Visa officer of opinion score not accurately reflecting applicant's ability to establish herself in Canada as applicant applying for landing in highly specialized field of study with very low occupational demand (translator, scientific documents)-Further concluding applicant lacking motivation, resourcefulness to establish herself in chosen occupation-S. 11(3) permitting visa officer to refuse to issue immigrant visa to immigrant who is awarded required number of units of assessment if good reasons why number of units of assessment not reflecting chances of particular immigrant becoming successfully established in Canada-As selection criteria having economic emphasis, visa officer's discretion should be exercised in same "economic spirit": Chen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 350 (T.D.) per Strayer J., confd [1995] 1 S.C.R. 725-Provided visa officer had good reasons for believing applicant would have difficulty in making living in Canada, visa officer properly exercised discretion-Although not awarded zero points in any category, applicant receiving below-average score in personal suitability, occupational demand-Visa officer must be given some discretion to determine for combination of reasons applicant not economically self-sufficient in Canada-As to allegation breach of duty of fairness by failing to let applicant disabuse officer's negative impression, cases where visa officer failed to ask questions or consider important aspect of application distinguished-Visa officer obliged to address all aspects of application, selection criteria and if in receipt of fresh information to bring it to applicant's attention-Not obliged to inform each applicant of negative impressions as they arise, particularly when concern some aspect of applicant not amenable to change, such as personal suitability or language ability-If applicant had different information about occupational demand, could have brought it forward when making her application-Neither breach of procedural fairness, nor jurisdictional error-Application dismissed-Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, s. 11(3) (as am. by SOR/81-461, s. 1).