Date: 19980519
Docket: IMM-2588-97
B E T W E E N:
CHAUDHRY NASER IQBAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of, and for an Order setting aside, the decision of a visa officer of the Canadian Consulate General in New York, dated April 21, 1997, whereby the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada, as an independent immigrant, was refused. The application was heard in Toronto on May 8, 1998, when the decision was reserved. Having subsequently considered the submissions then made by counsel for the parties, the Court now issues an order dismissing the application, for the reasons that follow.
[2] At the hearing, counsel for the applicant urged that the visa officer had erred in her understanding of qualifications required for the occupational classification which the applicant indicated he intended to follow in Canada, that is, chef, rotisseur. Moreover, it was urged that the visa officer erred in her assessment of the evidence before her in evaluating the experience of the applicant.
[3] The visa officer after interviewing the applicant indicated that her tentative conclusion, subject to confirmation, was that he did not meet requirements for immigration and that his application would be refused. This was subsequently confirmed by letter of April 21, 1997, where the basis of the officer's refusal was set out. As a result of her assessment of the applicant, the officer assigned a total of 68 units of assessment for the various factors to be taken into consideration under the Regulations. Among those factors is "experience", which relates to the occupational classifications for which the applicant is considered. In this case, the officer assigned to the applicant 0 units for experience and she indicated that he did not have the qualifications for his intended occupation. Under the Regulations, the visa officer may not issue a visa where the applicant does not have a minimum of one year experience in his intended occupation. That experience the applicant did not have in this case, according to the visa officer's assessment.
[4] The applicant questions that decision in light of the evidence presented with his application which indicated that he had worked as a chef for more than six years, from 1990 to 1993 at the hotel Shalimar in Rawalpindi, Pakistan and for some four years in Newark, New Jersey with the Afghan Restaurant as a chef rotisseur. The letter of reference from the Hotel Shalimar indicated that the applicant had "worked from 1990 to 1993 as a chef, particularly responsible for the preparation of meat dishes including the roasting of meat and poultry. He completed his internship and apprenticeship with us as a chef for the first two years of his service." Reference to his supervision of other staff and his responsibilities in preparation of meat dishes was also made, briefly. His employer in Newark, the Afghan Restaurant, indicated "basically he works in coordination and in discussion with subordinate cooks in times of parties thrown by customers at our restaurant. Mr. Iqbal supervises two cooks in the preparation of dishes and is responsible for the preparation of meat dishes. He overviews all roasting, baking and other forms of cooking meat and poultry and also recommends the preparation of gravies in the planning of dishes.".
[5] The visa officer assessed his application in relation to the occupation of chef rotisseur and the alternative occupations of chef-cook, and chef-cook general. The training and entry requirements for these occupations in Canada, according to the CCDO listing of occupations, normally require, in addition to general education, "a three to four year apprenticeship program; or vocational training in a community college or vocational centre, and on-the-job training for a period of approximately three years; or progressive on-the-job training under the guidance of experienced cooks for a period of from one to two years". The visa officer concluded that the applicant did not have these training requirements and though his background was discussed at his interview, the applicant did not provide further evidence or assurance about his background and experience.
[6] Counsel for the applicant urges that the letter from the Shalimar hotel, indicating his two year apprenticeship and internship, by implication must have been under the supervision of experienced cooking staff and that if it were so considered as an apprenticeship, his years of experience thereafter would appropriately be given units of assessment.
[7] I agree that apprenticeship as it is understood in North America would require supervision by experienced trades, or skilled, persons. Here, there is no explanation of the apprenticeship undertaken in the applicant's own country, Pakistan, and moreover, any period of apprenticeship there was less than required for entrance qualifications for the occupations here in issue as those are described in the CCDO records. Moreover, there is no indication of further training for the applicant with the Afghan Restaurant in Newark where he was said to have worked as a chef rotisseur, but his description of his duties in his interview with the visa officer led the latter to conclude that these were much less than those normally required of the position as described in the CCDO.
[8] I am satisfied that the visa officer's decision was based on the evidence provided to her in the application and supporting documents and in his interview, by the applicant. The visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant had met requirements for entry to his intended occupation, or alternative occupations in Canada for which he could be considered. Despite his experience over some six or more years in services concerned with food preparation and serving, the visa officer concluded he did not have experience for the job classification for which he applied, or for related or alternative employment classifications.
[9] In my opinion, the visa officer's decision cannot be said to have been made in bad faith or without reference to the evidence before her, or unreasonably. In these circumstances, there is no basis on which the Court should intervene.
| [10] Thus, the application for judicial review is dismissed. |
W. Andrew MacKay
________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 19, 1998
Email this Content