Date: 19991116
Docket: IMM-5982-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 16th day of November, 1999
Present : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between :
SHU-HUI CHOU,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of Neil Alexander, a visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in Singapore, dated October 19, 1998, in which he determined that the applicant failed to qualify as an immigrant in the assisted relative category, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Date: 19991116
Docket: IMM-5982-98
Between :
SHU-HUI CHOU,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of Neil Alexander, a visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in Singapore, dated October 19, 1998, determining that she failed to qualify as an immigrant in the assisted relative category.
Decision under review
[2] Because the applicant's application was submitted before the National Occupation Classification (NOC) replaced the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations Manual (CCDO) on May 1, 1997, her application was assessed under both systems. The applicant was assessed based on the requirements for the occupation of executive secretary (CCDO# 4111-111) and secretary (except legal and medical) (NOC# 1241.0). The applicant was awarded the following points of assessment:
CCDO NOC
Age (37) 10 10
Occupational Demand 5 5
Specific Vocational Preparation 15 --
or Education/Training Factor -- 7
Experience 0 0
Arranged Employment 0 0
Demographic Factor 8 8
Education 13 13
English 6 6
French 0 0
Personal Suitability 5 5
Total 62 54
[3] The visa officer concluded that the applicant had obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada in her intended occupation.
Issues
[4] This matter raises the following issues:
| (i) Did the visa officer err in law in not taking into account the secretarial courses taken by the applicant in college, in not assessing her work experience vis-à-vis the occupation of executive secretary as a whole, or in not considering whether her experience was transferable to the occupation of executive secretary? |
| (ii) Did the visa officer breach a duty of procedural fairness by imposing specific training requirements not apparent on the face of the CCDO description of executive secretary? |
| (iii) Was the visa officer's assertion that the applicant did not provide the requested reference letters an unreasonable finding of fact? |
Analysis
[5] In Chiu Chee To v. M.E.I. (May 22, 1996), A-172-93, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for discretionary decisions of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications is the same as that enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1, where Mr. Justice McIntyre stated at pages 7 to 8:
| . . . It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. . . . |
[6] With respect to the first issue, I am of the opinion that the visa officer's duty to consider whether the applicant's work experience is transferable to her intended occupation is subsumed by his duty to assess her work experience and employment history vis-à-vis the description of the intended occupation as a whole. In light of the evidence, I am satisfied that the visa officer considered the secretarial courses and assessed the applicant's work experience vis-à-vis the occupation as a whole. More specifically, the visa officer concluded that the applicant did not have sufficient training because Canadian entry requirement for secretaries is three to six months of training at a business school or one year in a special commercial course at high school. The visa officer stated in his affidavit, at paragraph 9, that he advised the applicant that Canadian entry requirements for secretaries are three to six months of training at a business school or one year in a special commercial course at high school. He also states that he gave the applicant a chance to respond, then told her that he was not satisfied with her level of training. Thus, it is fair to say that the visa officer considered the applicant's secretarial courses, but decided that they did not measure up to the requirement. This decision was based on the fact that the applicant's secretarial courses were only a minor part of her college program and she performed inadequately on a typing test.
[7] Concerning the second issue, the applicant states that the visa officer told her that "the Canadian entry requirements for secretaries were three to six months of training at a business school or one year in a special commercial course at High School". The applicant relies on McKeown J.'s statement in Lee v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (July 4, 1995), IMM-3472-94, that "[i]f there are requirements that an applicant to be assessed as a legal secretary must meet, fairness demands that this information must be provided to applicants". Given the above paragraph 9 of the visa officer's affidavit, I am satisfied that the latter did inform the applicant of the requirements and that she was given adequate opportunity to respond. As stated by Muldoon J. in Asghar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (August 21, 1997), IMM-2114-96, the duty of procedural fairness "does not arise merely because the visa officer has not been convinced, after weighing the evidence, that the application is well-founded. The visa officer's task is precisely to weigh the evidence submitted by the applicant".
[8] The final issue is whether the visa officer made an unreasonable finding of fact in asserting that the applicant did not provide the requested reference letters. On the one hand, the applicant is correct in pointing out that the Application for Permanent Residence in Canada only asks for her work history from the past ten years, but the letter attached to her interview notice requests employment reference letters from current and previous employers, with no mention of a specific time period. Therefore, it might have been reasonable for the applicant to assume that she was only required to bring references from the last ten years to her interview.
[9] On the other, the letter clearly states that applicants are to bring to their interview "Detailed employment reference letters from your current and previous employers". Therefore, the visa officer's assertion that the applicant did not provide the requested reference letters was not unreasonable. Moreover, under subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Act, the onus is on the applicant to show that he or she has a right to come into Canada. This means that it is the responsibility of the applicant to produce all relevant information which may assist his or her application.
[10] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 16, 1999