Date: 19980508
Docket: IMM-2620-97
BETWEEN:
ZAFAR ALI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MACKAY, J.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of, and an Order quashing, the decision, dated June 2, 1997, of a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York, which refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada. The matter was heard in Toronto on May 7, 1998, when decision was reserved. It is now dealt with by Order dismissing the application for relief by judicial review, for the reasons that follow.
[2] In brief, the applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada, indicating his intended occupation in Canada was that of Chef. Following an interview with the visa officer in New York on May 29, 1997 he was assessed under the Immigration Regulations in relation to the occupation of Chef Rotisseur, as classified in CCDO 6121117. He was assigned a total of 64 units, less that the 70 units of assessment then acquired for a prospective permanent resident, and his application was refused. The assessment, an explanation, and the visa officer's refusal of his application were set out in a letter from the visa officer, dated June 2, 1997. The assessment and the consequent refusal are questioned by this application for judicial review.
[3] The units assessed in relation to several of the factors to be considered in regard to an application for permanent residence are questioned by the applicant. It is urged that the visa officer erred in her assessment, unreasonably or by failing to appropriately consider the evidence before her, or unfairly in certain respects and the Court should intervene to set aside the decision and refer the matter for reconsideration. I deal with the assessment concerns of the applicant in turn.
[4] In assessing the applicant's education the visa officer assigned 5 units, less than the 10 units which it is urged ought to have been assigned since in his application it was indicated that the highest level of education he had obtained was "secondary school."
[5] I am not persuaded that the visa officer erred in assigning 5 units of assessment for education. She did so after confirmation by the applicant at his interview that his secondary school education would not entitle him to enter university studies in Pakistan, his native country, and that he had not completed any other formal program of studies. Information from the Canadian Embassy in Pakistan was that if an applicant had completed higher secondary school in Pakistan, they would assess 10 points for education, but the school level completed by the applicant, though it permitted entry to technical schools and apprentice programs, was not sufficient for university entrance in Pakistan, and in a similar case an applicant would be assessed at 5 units for education.
[6] This is in accord with s. 8 and Schedule I, item 1(1)(b) of the Immigration Regulations, whereby 5 units shall be awarded in assessing the education of an applicant who has a diploma of completion of secondary school that does not lead to university entrance in the country of study, and does not include trade or occupational certification. That was the nature of the applicant's secondary school education, as he confirmed at his interview. He was advised at the interview that the visa officer would assign only 5 units for education. The visa officer made no error in that assessment which was the maximum allowable under the regulations in the circumstances of this case.
[7] In assessing the applicant's experience, the visa officer assigned 6 units of a possible 10. It is urged she did not consider all of the evidence before her. Moreover, it is said that she failed to consider the applicant's experience in relation to the occupational classification of Sales Promotion Administrator, an alternative occupation for which the applicant believes, in light of his experience over some years in Saudi Arabia, he ought to have been assessed.
[8] As evidence of his experience the applicant provided four letters concerning his previous employment. Two, from former employers in Saudi Arabia were considered irrelevant in assessing his experience for the occupation which he intended to follow. The first related to his work as a surveyor, a profession or trade for which he did not have qualifications required for its practice in Canada, and the second related to his employment as a foreman, an occupation for which there was no demand in Canada. A letter from Domino's Pizza, with whom he had been employed for some three years in New York as a chef saucier and a meat chef, indicated he had specialized in preparation of meat dishes, Italian foods, and preparation of sauces used in such dishes and in pizzas. He was said to have undergone on the job training. The final letter from Da Hang Kitchen indicated he was employed, most recently and for some three years or more, as a chef rotisseur/saucier working with experienced cooks to expand his experience in preparation of meat dishes. At his interview he denied he had been trained by experienced cooks at the last establishment.
[9] The visa officer determined on the basis of his documents and his interview that the applicant did not have the training qualifications for the chef rotisseur classification which he indicated he intended to follow in Canada, or for other classifications within the general class of "chef" in the CCDO classifications. She assessed his experience at Domino's Pizza, in light of her understanding of his work there, as a fast food or pizza preparer, not that of chef. While she did not consider he met the qualifications for his intended occupation, and she discounted the description of training at Da Hang Kitchen in light of his own comments on that, she did access his experience, principally with that firm, at 6 units. I am not persuaded that in so doing the visa officer can be said to have acted unreasonably in light of the evidence before her.
[10] The affidavit of the visa officer does provide evidence that she reviewed, with the applicant at his interview, a number of alternative occupations within various classifications of chef in the CCDO, the training and entry requirements for these, and explained why, in her opinion, he did not meet the qualifications for these classifications.
[11] As for the suggestion that the applicant should have been assessed in relation to an alternative occupational classification, that of Sales Promotion Administrator, there was no evidence before the visa officer supporting the statements in his application form that he had been employed, and later self-employed, in that occupation in Saudi Arabia. Neither in his written application, nor in his interview, did he ask to be assessed in regard to that occupational qualification. Finally, in any event, he was not qualified by training for the requirements of that classification in the CCDO system. Again, the visa officer committed no error by not assessing him in relation to that job classification.
[12] The applicant was assigned 2 units of assessment in relation to his ability in the English language. It is urged the assessment is low in light of his own belief that he is fluent in English. The evidence of a written test and the visa officer's assessment of his understanding of spoken English contradicts the applicant's own view of his capacity. There is no evidence that would show the visa office's assessment in this regard was unreasonable. I add that the applicant's submission that the assessment of the suitability factor and his language ability both as substantially below average, is not established on the evidence, but even if that were so, it would be no indication that the assessment "was biased, contrary to the evidence and made in such a manner as not to permit the applicant to obtain the seventy (70) points minimum." Simply to be assessed below average is not in itself evidence of bias of bad faith on the part of the visa officer.
[13] Finally, it is urged that the officer erred, in considering the applicant's personal suitability, that his savings of $17,795 were insufficient for him and his family to successfully establish themselves in Canada. It is urged that those savings in U.S. dollars were the equivalent of more than $24,000 Canadian and that sum would be sufficient for their establishment in Canada. I am not persuaded the visa officer's conclusion was unreasonable; it was rationally based on department estimates that the low-income cut-off essential for a family unit like that of the applicant in a Canadian city of 500,000 or more, for 1997-98, was $36,000. The applicant indicated his proposed place of residence would be Toronto. No reviewable error on the part of the visa officer is apparent in her assessment of the adequacy of his savings for successful establishment in Canada.
[14] The visa officer's assessment of the applicant for purposes of his application for permanent residence, in the independent category, is not shown to be in error, to have been unfairly conducted, to be unreasonable, or to have been made in bad faith or without regard to the evidence before her.
[15] No ground is established for intervention of the Court. Thus the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W. Andrew MacKay"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
May 8, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2620-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ZAFAR ALI |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 7, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: MacKAY, J.
DATED: MAY 8, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Stan Ehrlich
For the Applicant
Mr. Marcel Laroche
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Codina & Pukitis
1708-390 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2Y2
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980508
Docket: IMM-2620-97
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content