Date : 19990108
Docket : IMM-831-98
| Between: LOU Ying, Executive Secretary, presently residing at no 133, Bayi Road, Midsummer Garden, Dalian, Province of Liaoning, Peoples" Republic of China; |
Applicant
| And: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, c/o Department of Justice, Guy-Favreau Complex, 200 René-Lévesque West, East Tower, 5th Floor, Montreal, Quebec, H2Z 1X4; |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is an application by the applicant, Lou Ying, for judicial review of a decision by J. Ng, Immigration Officer, Canadian Consulate General, Hong Kong, dated November 27,1997. The applicant asks that the decision of J. Ng be set aside and be referred back "for determination in accordance with such direction as it (the Court) considers to be appropriate ...", that is, refer the matter back to a different immigration officer for a new hearing and determination.
FACTS
[2] The applicant, originally from the Republic of China, filed an application for permanent residence in Canada on January 31, 1997. She applied for permanent residence in the category of an independent immigrant. On November 25, 1997, the applicant was interviewed by Ms. Ng. By letter dated November 27, 1997, Ms. Ng informed Ms. Ying that her request for permanent residence is being denied because she was unable to acquire the minimum number of points required pursuant to the Canadian Immigration Act and Regulations (1978). Ms. Ng allowed the applicant 54 points whereas a minimum of 70 points is required.
Decision of Immigration Officer
[3] The pertinent part of the immigration officer"s decision is the following:
| Pursuant to subsections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 as amended, immigrants in the Independent category shall be assessed on the basis of each of the factors listed in column 1 of Schedule I of the Regulations. These factors are: education, specific vocational preparation, experience, occupational demand, arranged employment or designated occupation, demographic factor, age, knowledge of English and French languages and, on the basis of an interview, personal suitability. |
|
| I have assessed you in the occupation Executive Secretary under the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO). However, based on your description of your experience and your training, you were determined not to qualify to undertake that occupation. |
|
| I have assessed you in the occupation Administration Clerk, for which you earned the following units of assessment: |
|
| Specific Vocational Preparation 05 |
|
| Subsection 11(2) if 0 demand of the Regulations sets out that a visa officer shall not issue a visa to an immigrant, if that immigrant fails to earn at least one unit of assessment for occupational demand. Unfortunately the demand assigned for your occupation at the time of your application was zero and it is zero now. I consider the units of assessment that you have earned are an accurate assessment of your ability to successfully establish in Canada. |
|
| Since subsection 11(2) if 0 demand of the Regulations prohibits the issuance of an immigrant visa in your circumstances, you are a member of the class of persons who are inadmissible to Canada described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, 1976. I have, accordingly, refused your application. I have attached copies of the legislation referred to in this letter for your reference. |
|
| I have also assessed you in the occupation Translator, Scientific Documents under the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO). However, based on your description of your experience and qualifications, you were determined not to qualify to undertake that occupation. |
|
[4] For the purposes of this decision, it is important to note that the application for permanent residence was also assessed in the occupation "Translator, Scientific Documents under the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO).
PARTIES" SUBMISSIONS
[5] In the applicant"s written submissions, the applicant alleges that the immigration officer erred in rejecting her application for four reasons. At the hearing before me, counsel for the applicant abandoned all but her final submission, that is, that the immigration officer erred in her assessment of the applicant in the occupation of Translator of Scientific Documents because the immigration officer failed to consider that the applicant worked for two years as a "Translator Scientific Documents" for "Information Research Institute, Anshan Iron and Steel Complex" (Question 18, Application, page 11, Tribunal file), failed to give proper consideration to a letter of reference from the Information Research Institute (page 39, Tribunal file) and that the immigration officer erred in failing to question the applicant about her knowledge and experience and education with regard to the occupation of a translator of scientific documents.
[6] The respondent submits that the immigration officer assessed the applicant as to the occupation of translator of scientific documents and that the officer concluded, taking into account the applicant"s experience and education, that the applicant did not have the qualifications for the said occupation. The respondent refers to the CCDO which lists the requirements needed to be qualified as a translator of scientific documents. Such a person, in this case the applicant, would have had to have obtained or have studied in a translation course for a specific specialty such as in law or engineering or the sciences. The respondent submits that the applicant failed to show such evidence and therefore the immigration officer was right in denying the application for permanent residence.
[7] The applicant submits that the immigration officer failed to properly assess the applicant in the occupation of translator of scientific documents, in that such an assessment requires the immigration officer to compare the description of the applicant"s work experience with the requirements of this occupation as stated in the CCDO. The applicant submits that the immigration officer failed to properly assess the applicant because of the fact that the immigration officer, only as an afterthought, gave some kind of superficial consideration to the applicant"s request to be considered as a translator of scientific documents (see affidavit of applicant).
[8] The applicant further submits that the immigration officer failed in her duty to properly consider the applicant in this intended occupation because the immigration officer failed, as I have said, to consider the letter of reference and failed, if she thought it necessary, to question the applicant about her work experience at Anshan Research Institute. The immigration officer failed to question the applicant on her education with regard to the degree obtained by the applicant. The applicant studied at the Xi"an Jiaotong University. Foreign Language Department, EST (English for Science and Technology) for four years (a four year course) and was awarded a Bachelor of Arts with a major in EST.
[9] The respondent submits that the immigration officer did assess the applicant to see if she was admissible as a translator which appears from a reading of the November 27, 1997 decision and that the officer did not commit an error in that the applicant did not have the requirements as set out in the CCDO.
DISCUSSION
[10] The CCDO 1971 states, in relation to translators of scientific documents:
| TRAINING AND ENTRY REQUIREMENTS |
|
| Translators and Interpreters require: |
|
| - learning ability to understand and use a wide range of complex or abstract cultural, political, commercial, technical or scientific concepts or terms expressed in two or more languages, and to research and keep up to date on vocabulary usage and new terminology; |
|
| - verbal ability to understand meanings of words and ideas associated with them, and to use them effectively, in two or more languages; |
|
| - clerical perception to discern pertinent detail in text. |
|
[11] It is important to note that one of the qualifications is that the applicant have, at a minimum, I add, a three year university program leading to a bachelor degree in translation, with additional years of study for specialization and for translators of scientific or technical material, additional studies are required in the field of specialization such as law, engineering or sciences.
[12] According to the case of Hajariwala v. Canada (1989) 6 IMM.L.R. (2d) 222, the applicant has the burden to show that she satisfies all of the requirements of the law to be admissible as an independent immigrant and then the immigration officer has a corresponding obligation to examine the application and prepare a fair assessment.
[13] In the present instance, it would appear from a reading of the affidavits of both the applicant and the immigration officer that the immigration officer questioned the applicant about her education, her training and her work experience. I am satisfied, from reading the affidavits, that the applicant had the opportunity, even if she may have been interrupted, to explain to the immigration officer the issue of her education and training.
[14] The immigration officer, after examining the applicant"s application for permanent residence and after making reference to the requirements of the CCDO, concluded that the applicant did not have the necessary requirements for this occupation.
CONCLUSION
[15] I am satisfied the immigration officer fulfilled her obligations under the Act by acting as she did. I am also satisfied the immigration officer considered what was to be considered in arriving at her decision and was not obligated to go any further than she did when it was obvious to her that the applicant did not fulfill the CCDO requirements, that is, the applicant did not have additional years of study in a particular field.
[16] The application for judicial review is denied.
[17] Both parties have informed me that they have no question to be certified.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
January 8, 1999
Email this Content