Zhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-603-98

Email this Content

Citations
docket IMM-603-98

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 19981218

Docket: IMM-603-98

BETWEEN:

JIAN ZHU

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER

WETSTON J.

[1] The applicant is seeking judicial review of a decision of a Visa Officer, Ms. Mary Coulter, who refused his application for permanent residence to Canada by letter dated January 7, 1998. The paper screening took place on April 28, 1997, after which it was determined that an interview was required to assess the applicant, who applied as an Industrial Products Designer. The purpose of the interview was to determine whether or not he met the requirements of the CCDO in his intended occupation of Industrial Products Designer.

[2] The Visa Officer was of the opinion that the applicant had not completed a specialized program in industrial design and had not received one to three years of on-the-job training under the supervision of a qualified designer as required under the CCDO. It was explained to the applicant that his studies did not allow him to meet the minimum training and entry requirements for industrial products designer. It was further explained that the activities under Industrial products designer include creating designs for a wide range of manufacturing products. The applicant, however, is not involved in his employment in the design of manufactured products, but only in the design of certain specific machines and equipment.

[3] Applicant's counsel, in a very thorough and comprehensive manner, advanced three arguments. During the hearing I indicated that I did not accept his argument with respect to the interpretation given to Product and Interior Designers contained in the CCDO. Secondly, applicant's counsel contended that insufficient opportunities were provided to allow the applicant to satisfy the Visa Officer that he met the training and entry requirements. I also do not accept this argument.

[4] The main argument of the applicant, however, was that the he works in the area of industrial design and has at least one to three years of on-the-job training in this area. He did not contend, however, that he was under the supervision of a qualified designer during that time. It was his contention that his mechanical design and manufacturing skills were transferable to the occupation of industrial design and furthermore, that his actual job experience should be considered as sufficient to satisfy the training and entry requirements.

[5] The respondent contended that the description should be read as a whole and that the Visa Officer was of the opinion that the applicant did not satisfy the CCDO definition including the aptitude and capacities needed to fulfil the requirements. The respondent submitted that these are not regulations and that the Court should approach their application broadly. The respondent further submitted that based on the applicant's description of his studies and work experience, he did not meet the training and entry requirements for his intended occupation. He completed a four year program in mechanical design and manufacture but did not complete a specialized program in industrial design, nor did he receive one to three years of on-the-job training under the supervision of a qualified designer as required. As such, it is contended that the applicant could not be assessed as an Industrial Product Designer.

[6] During his post-secondary education at the College of Engineering, Shanghai University, the applicant contends that he took several courses related to industrial products design such as mechanical structure design, primary parts and instruments design and mechanical design theory. These courses, however, clearly do not meet the required two to four years specialized program in industrial design.

[7] The applicant indicated further that he has worked at the Shanghai Duo Lang-Watson Machinery Equipment Company in the design of a series of crusher machines since 1992. The Visa Officer was of the opinion that despite his actual work experience, the applicant was not involved in designing manufactured products and his experience lay only in the design of certain specific machines and equipment. I find the visa officer had a sufficient basis for her decision. The CCDO requirements for an Industrial Designer, depending on the complexity of the occupation, and the corresponding Specific Vocation Preparation requirement normally specify one to three years of on-the-job training under the supervision of a qualified designer. This training must be formal (Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations). The applicant clearly had not satisfied the SVP requirement.

[8] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Howard I. Wetston"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

December 18, 1998

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO: IMM-603-98

STYLE OF CAUSE: JIAN ZHU

and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY: WETSTON, J.

DATED: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1998

APPEARANCES: Mr. Mark Rosenblatt

For the Applicant

Ms. Marissa Bielski

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mark Rosenblatt

Barrister & Solicitor

335 Bay Street, Suite 1000

Toronto, Ontario

M5H 2R3