Date: 19980609
Docket: IMM-2280-97
BETWEEN:
RIZWAN ALI RAJANI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
MULDOON, J.
[1] At the termination of the hearing of this matter in Toronto on April 28, 1998, the Court dismissed this application for judicial review and promised written reasons when time would permit. These are the reasons.
[2] The applicant sought judicial review - in fact writs - of certiorari and mandamus, "quashing the decision dated April 15, 1997 * * * made by N.M. Egan, [a] designated immigration officer, at the Consulate General * * * Buffalo, New York", which decision determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for permanent residence to [sic] Canada. The applicant also sought, inter alia, "costs on a solicitor and client basis". There was no chance of such an award, and it was dismissed too.
[3] The designated immigration officer's impugned decision, in letter form, is exhibited at p. 0057 and p. 0062 of the applicant's record (A.R.) and runs as follows:
| |
In the matter of your application for permanent residence in Canada, this is to confirm that I have determined that you do not meet with the requirements for immigration to Canada. I originally advised you in person of this decision at your interview on April 15, 1997. |
|
| |
Pursuant to Section 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, independent applicants, in the category in which you applied, are assessed on the basis of the following factors; education, specific vocational preparation, experience, occupational factors, arranged employment or designated occupation, Canadian demographic factors, age, knowledge of English and French languages and personal suitability. You were assessed based on the requirements for each of the following occupations: Executive Secretary, CCDO 4111-111 and Secretary, CCDO 4111-110. |
|
| |
At your interview on this date, I expressed to you my serious concern that you did not appear to qualify for selection as an Executive Secretary. I noted that you have no formal training as an Executive Secretary. I cautioned you that failure to disabuse me of my concern, could lead to the refusal of your application. You responded that this, in fact was true, that you do not have any formal training that would enable you to meet the Specific Vocational Preparation requirements of this occupation. I then advised you that you had not disabused me of my concern, and that I had therefore determined that you do qualify [sic] for selection as an Executive Secretary. |
|
| |
I therefore assessed you as a Secretary, an occupation for which you appear to have the necessary training and experience, and which you can reasonably be expected to follow in Canada. However, you have obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada. You therefore come within the inadmissible class of persons described in Paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Act which reads as follows: |
|
| |
(2) No immigrant . . . shall be granted admission if the immigrant . . . is a member of any of the following classes: |
|
| |
(d) persons who cannot or do not fulfil or comply with any of the conditions or requirements of this Act or the regulations or any orders or directions lawfully made or given under this Act or the regulations. |
|
| |
I have therefore refused your application. The details of the units of assessment that you received are attached for your reference. |
|
| |
SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION 11 |
|
| |
KNOWLEDGE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE 9 |
|
| |
KNOWLEDGE OF FRENCH LANGUAGE 0 |
|
| |
TOTAL (minimum required 70) 63 |
|
[4] The applicant complains that the immigration officer did not "fully understand his employment and educational background". He complained that she "ignored the fact that [he] has been successfully employed in the United States as an executive secretary * * *". He submitted an "employment certificate" from his employer Diversified Graphics, Inc. dated June 6, 1996, signed by Firoz Ali, president (A.R., p. 0035) which, despite its praise for alleged honesty and diligence, falls short of showing successful employment as an executive secretary.
[5] The immigration officer's affidavit is exhibited in the respondent's record (R.R., p. 1 et seq.). She deposed, in part, as follows:
| |
4. I thoroughly reviewed Mr. Rajani's file prior to interviewing the applicant. I approached Mr. Rajani's interview with an open mind and had no predisposition as to the outcome of his application for permanent residence in Canada. I displayed no impatience or bias at the interview and was prepared to spend as much time as was necessary to fully assess the application. I had concerns about Mr. Rajani's qualifications as an executive secretary but these in no way prevented me from fully and fairly assessing the information and evidence presented. I provided Mr. Rajani with a fully [sic] opportunity to answer my concerns. |
|
| |
5. My concerns were that Mr. Rajani did not have sufficient training and experience to qualify for immigration as an executive secretary. When I put my concerns to Mr. Rajani at his interview, he admitted that he had no formal training as an executive secretary. Mr. Rajani stated that his only training was "on-the-job" training. |
|
| |
7. With respect to Mr. Rajani's assertion that he received on-the-job training, there appeared to be some discrepancy in his story. He claimed to have been hired at diversified Graphics due to his strong computer skills and because he didn't need any training, but then submitted a "training certificate" issued by Diversified Graphics. I noted that while Mr. Rajani was working at Diversified Graphics, he was also working at House of Trophies. |
|
| |
8. I considered Mr. Rajani's work experience and training at Diversified Graphics, but at his interview, he failed to demonstrate to me that his responsibilities were those of an executive secretary. I formed the opinion that Mr. Rajani's Diversified Graphics experience and training was that of a secretary, not an executive secretary. I reached this conclusion as Mr. Rajani was unable to convince me that his work reflected the upper echelon of duties which are performed by an executive secretary. |
|
| |
9. Accordingly, my conclusion was that Mr. Rajani lacked both the formal training and the work experience of an executive secretary. In my opinion, Mr. Rajani's qualifications as a secretary were not strong, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assessed him as a secretary. I advised Mr. Rajani that he had not obtained sufficient points to qualify for immigration. I asked whether there was anything else Mr. Rajani would like me to consider, and he replied "no". |
|
[6] Now, the applicant may have fooled himself and the immigration officer when in paragraph 20 of his affidavit (A.R., p. 0010), he swears that in March, 1990 he received his Bachelor of Commerce from Shah Abdul Latif University, and that [a copy of] his degree is exhibit 'C-2' to his affidavit. There are 2 copies of that document, being pages 0034 and 0079 of the A.R., but the document is not a bachelor of anything degree: it is a transcript of marks or grades, certified by the signature not of anyone called the Chancellor or the President, or even a dean, but the signature of the "Controller of Examinations". Indeed, that official purports to certify "the number of marks secured by Mr. Riswan Ali Rajani in each head of passing at the B.Com. (Part I) Annual Examination of 1989 held in March, 1990." That certificate notably does not proclaim that the applicant has successfully completed all the requirements for the Bachelor of Commerce degree. Verily, passing "Part I" makes one believe that the candidate might next have to pass at least Part II, if not also Part III. How strange that the applicant put forward this document as if it were his conferred degree! Of what could he have been thinking?
[7] One must note that, except for Islamic and Pakistan studies, the maximum marks attainable in the six secular, "commerce" subjects are 100. One may question the standards of a university whose minimum marks for passing those subjects are only 33 marks in each. In only one such subject did the applicant achieve a grade of over 50 (53: far short of 60).
[8] The immigration officer assessed the applicant's qualifications correctly. And, that is why his application for judicial review (certiorari) was dismissed from the bench at the end of the hearing. So be it.
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
June 9,1998
Email this Content