Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-132-98

Date: 19981027

Docket: IMM-132-98

BETWEEN:

     YI JUN WU,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

WETSTON, J.

[1]      The Applicant, a citizen of the Peoples' Republic of China, seeks judicial review of an immigration officer's decision in which her application for permanent residence to Canada was denied.

[2]      The main argument of the Applicant is that the visa officer erred in finding that she did not have the required formal secretarial training to perform as an executive secretary and in characterizing her skills as those of an administrative clerk.

[3]      I took the exceptional step and allowed a letter to be introduced during the judicial review proceeding that was not before the visa officer. As this is a judicial review, obviously this should occur only in exceptional cases and I did so because the question of courses for secretarial training was discussed at the interview. While the onus rests on the Applicant to provide the appropriate information in support of her application I felt that since the matter had been discussed, the letter would be of assistance to the Court in attempting to understand the nature and quality of the evidence provided to the visa officer at the interview. In any event, the Respondent contends that the Applicant was given full units of assessment for her education.

[4]      My review of the evidence suggests that there is no basis to set aside the visa officer's decision. As indicated previously, while the onus is on the Applicant to provide the required supporting information, little weight can be attributed to the letter since there are few details with respect to the nature and content of the courses, the duration of the courses, nor are any of the results of these courses provided.

[5]      In any event, it would appear that the visa officer considered the evidence before her, including whether or not the formal training requirements in the CCDO were satisfied. Her affidavit also clearly indicates that the Applicant's work history was considered. I see no error with respect to the visa officer's assessment of the facts before her, or the weight attributed thereto, nor do I view the letter as a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the visa officer erred in the exercise of her responsibilities. Furthermore, the onus is on the Applicant and I see no basis to set the decision aside on fairness grounds.

[6]      In arriving at my decision in this matter, I have also considered the following authorities: Abbassi v. M.C.I. (August 17, 1998) IMM-477-98 (F.C.T.D.); Cai v. Canada (M.C.I.) (January 17, 1997) IMM-883-96; Lim v. M.E.I. (1991), 12 Imm.L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.); and Ou v. M.C.I. (August 15, 1997) IMM-2993-96 (F.C.T.D.).

[7]      The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

                             (Sgd.) "Howard I. Wetston"

                                     Judge

Vancouver, British Columbia

October 27, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NO.:                      IMM-132-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:                  Yi Jun Wu

                             v.

                             MCI

PLACE OF HEARING:                  Vancouver, British Columbia

REASONS FOR ORDER OF WETSTON, J.

dated October 27, 1998

APPEARANCES BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

     Anthony R. Norfolk

     Barrister & Solicitor

     Vancouver, BC                  for the Applicant

     Morris Rosenberg                  for the Respondent

     Deputy Attorney General

     of Canada