Date: 19991117
Docket: IMM-1174-99
BETWEEN:
JAWED IQBAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PELLETIER J.:
[1] These are reasons which were rendered orally at the conclusion of the hearing of this application. They have been edited for readability.
[2] The applicant applied for admission to Canada as a permanent resident on the basis of his intended employment as a technical writer. He submitted a letter from his former employer in Pakistan indicating that he had been employed for the period of July 1986 to June 1989 as a technical writer. The letter went on to describe certain functions which might be described as relating either to hydrology or soil science. He also submitted a letter from a U.S. employer which indicated employment as a technical writer for a period of some 6 years.
[3] Prior to the applicant"s interview, attempts to contact the U.S. employer disclosed that the number listed on the letter was for another business which had had the use of the number since a date preceding the date of the employment letter. Inquiries with Directory Assistance did not disclose a listing for the employer.
[4] Confronted with this at his interview on February 2, 1999, the applicant could do no more than insist that he worked for the employer in question and that his duties were varied including driving taxi.
[5] The applicant was then asked to describe the duties listed in the employment letter from his Pakistani employer. He was unable to do so. He was then asked if he had any other evidence of his employment as a technical writer, in response to which he produced correspondence dating from 1993 which described him as an instrumentation technician. When asked whether he was employed as a technical writer or an instrumentation technician, the applicant would only say he had many duties. He would give no particulars of his employment as an instrument technician.
[6] The Visa Officer concluded that there was no credible evidence of employment as a technical writer and awarded the applicant 0 (zero) points for occupational experience in the assessment grid prescribed in the Immigration Regulations 1978. The effect of s. 11 of the Regulations is that no visa can be awarded to a person with a score of 0 with respect to occupational experience except for circumstances which are not material to this claim. The officer then concluded that since the applicant would not discuss his employment as an instrumentation technician, she could not assess him under that occupation.
[7] The refusal of the applicant"s visa application is challenged a number of grounds. The allegations that the applicant ought to have been awarded more points for his command of English and for personal suitability are without merit. The Visa Officer"s assessment was reasonable and ought not to be disturbed. It is alleged that he ought to have been credited for experience as a technical writer or, in the alternative, that he ought to have been assessed in the occupation of soil scientist on the basis of certain duties set out in the employment letter from his Pakistani employer. Underlying this is the assertion that the documentary evidence should be accepted at face value and that it is an error of law not to do so.
[8] No utterance, no document, is proof of anything unless it is found to be credible. An assertion is not made more credible by being reduced to writing. Where the issue is the occupational experience of an applicant, and the applicant cannot describe the duties listed in an employment letter which purports to describe his duties, a visa officer is entitled to conclude that the document should be given no weight. This is particularly so where there has been an intention to mislead. In this case, the effect of such a finding is that in the absence of any evidence from the applicant, there is no evidence of any occupational experience as a technical writer. A score of 0 is therefore justified.
[9] It is then alleged that the Visa Officer had the obligation to assess the applicant in the occupation of soil scientist which, it is said, is an occupation for which the documentary evidence shows him to be qualified. There is no evidence before me, such as a copy of the relevant portions of the NOC, on which I could find that this is so. But more fundamentally, the duty to assess a candidate on the basis of alternate occupations is not exercised in a vacuum. The duty is limited to those occupations "inherent in the applicant"s work experience". Cai .v MCI [1997] F.C.J. No. 55. Where, as here, there is no credible evidence as to work experience, there is no other occupation which could be said to be "inherent in the applicant"s work experience."
[10] In the result, there will be an order dismissing the application.
ORDER
[11] The application for judicial review of the decision of Marlene Edmond dated February 16, 1999 is hereby dismissed.
"J. D. Denis Pelletier"
J.F.C.C.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
November 17, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: JAWED IQBAL |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PELLETIER J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1999
| APPEARANCES: Ms. Angie Codina |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Codina & Pukitis |
Barristers & Solicitors
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19991117
Docket: IMM-1174-99
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content