Ahmad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1997) 137 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

• Judge: Teitelbaum, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 27, 1997
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1997), 137 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

Ahmad v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1997), 137 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1997] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.054

Mohammad Ahmad (applicant) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (respondent)

(IMM-4355-96)

Indexed As: Ahmad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Teitelbaum, J.

October 30, 1997.

Summary:

Ahmad applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision to refuse his application for landing.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application and returned the matter to a different visa officer for determination.

Aliens - Topic 1232

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Units of assessment - General - Ahmad applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision to refuse his application for landing - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application and returned the matter to a different officer for determination - The letter refusing landing made it appear as if it was the writer who had interviewed Ahmad - This was incorrect, but did not of itself vitiate the process - However, this combined with an issue respecting how much money was required to become self-sufficient and the fact that the officer double counted age as a factor, did make the process invalid.

Aliens - Topic 1233.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Units of assessment - Personal suitability - Ahmad, a Pakistani citizen, had property worth $45,000 in Pakistan and over $20,000 in a Saudi bank account - The visa officer, in determining personal suitability, stated that Ahmad had "no cash funds to support settlement" - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that if the officer meant "insufficient funds" this begged the question of how much was enough - The size of an applicant's savings account was meaningful to a personal suitability assessment only insofar as it provided a possible forecast of future economic success in Canada - Ahmad's ability to successfully maintain employment for over 12 years in Saudi Arabia, which had laws and employment practices very inhospitable to foreign workers, was considerably more indicative of his ability to make a living in Canada - See paragraphs 21 to 25.

Aliens - Topic 1233.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Units of assessment - Personal suitability - Ahmad applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision to refuse his application for landing - The officer had referred to his age as a factor against his personal suitability - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "[t]o the extent that item 1 of Schedule I of the Regulations already accounts for age, the Officer seems to have engaged in double counting, a practice normally proscribed. It would appear that age, as with other items in Schedule I, may only be considered de novo under personal suitability where it speaks to the applicant's motivation, resourcefulness, etc." - See paragraph 28.

Cases Noticed:

Gaffney v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 121 N.R. 256; 12 Imm. L.R.(2d) 185 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 1].

Li v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 31 F.T.R. 290; 9 Imm. L.R.(2d) 263 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 2].

Dhaliwal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 52 F.T.R. 311; 16 Imm. L.R.(2d) 212 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 3].

Hung v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1994), 83 F.T.R. 299 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 3].

Fong v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 35 F.T.R. 305; 11 Imm. L.R.(2d) 205 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 9].

Hemani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 37 Imm. L.R.(2d) 76 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 11].

Chen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration et al., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 725; 179 N.R. 70, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 11].

Ping v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 033 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 12].

Syed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 122 F.T.R. 46; 35 Imm. L.R.(2d) 157 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 12].

Zeng v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 121 N.R. 252; 12 Imm. L.R.(2d) 167 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 13].

Stefan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 35 Imm. L.R.(2d) 21 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 14].

Bastanfar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 35 Imm. L.R.(2d) 29 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 15].

Counsel:

Emile Jean Barakat, for the applicant;

Daniel Latulippe, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Emile Jean Barakat, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on October 27, 1997, at Montreal, Quebec, by Teitelbaum, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on October 30, 1997.