Date: 19990423
Docket: IMM-2212-98
BETWEEN:
PARESH ROOPANI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
EVANS J.:
[1] Paresh Roopani is a 31-year-old citizen of India who has been living in the United States since 1994. In 1997 he applied for permanent residence status in Canada as an independent applicant in the category of skilled worker. He stated on the application form that he intends to pursue the occupation of baker in Canada.
[2] The visa officer refused his application on the ground that she had awarded him only 60 units of assessment (including 5 for having a relative in Canada), whereas an independent applicant normally needs 70 units to be eligible for a visa.
[3] Mr. Roopani"s counsel challenged the decision on several grounds. She argued first that the visa officer erred in law in awarding the applicant zero units of assessment for work experience. A person who is not awarded any units of assessment for experience is not eligible for a visa: Immigration Regulations, 1978 , SOR/78-172, subsection 11(1).
[4] As relevant to the facts of this case, the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations provides that the training requirements for the occupation of baker are ten to eleven years of general education, and two to three years of apprenticeship or similar on-the-job training.
[5] As a university graduate, Mr. Roopani satisfies the general education requirement. In addition, he was awarded a diploma on the successful completion of a six months" course in baking and confectionery in India. He had also worked as a baker for four years in India, and for two years in the United States.
[6] However, the visa officer concluded that Mr. Roopani satisfied neither the apprenticeship requirement, nor, in the alternative, the on-the-job training requirement. His vocational program was of only six months" duration, and while he had worked as a baker for six years, there was no evidence in his application that he had received any kind of on-the-job training during this period. Accordingly, since the applicant lacked the training requirements required in Canada for the occupation of baker, his employment did not qualify as experience for the purpose of Schedule I.
[7] Counsel submitted that the visa officer had erred in law by not regarding employment as the equivalent of on-the-job training given the very practical nature of the occupation of baker. She relied on Nakamine v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.T.D.; IMM-2215-97; January 7, 1998) for the proposition that it may be an error of law to attach too much importance to formal training for the occupation of chef. However, in that case, the visa officer seems not to have considered the fact that on-the-job training is a substitute for a formal apprenticeship.
[8] In my opinion, on-the-job training cannot simply be inferred from the fact that a person has work experience in a particular occupation. To collapse on-the-job training and experience would effectively eliminate the former as an occupational requirement, which would seem clearly contrary to the statutory scheme.
[9] Counsel also pointed out that the visa officer had erred when she stated in the letter of decision that the CCDO prescribes a three to four year apprenticeship for bakers. However, since the applicant had no more than six months" apprenticeship, and no on-the-job training, he clearly did not meet the prescribed standard. Accordingly, the error made by the visa officer was immaterial and could have made no difference to the outcome.
[10] Since the visa officer made no material error of law in assessing the applicant"s experience, I can deal briefly with the other grounds upon which counsel impugned the visa officer"s decision. First, I agree with her submission that it was patently unreasonable for the visa officer to conclude that the duties performed by the applicant did not match those described in the CCDO as the duties of a baker. Second, I also agree that the visa officer erred when she took into consideration under the personal suitability factor the fact that the applicant had been residing in the United States illegally: B"Ghiel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.T.D.; IMM-2545-97, July 8, 1998); compare Mui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.T.D.; IMM-1079-97; March 20, 1998).
[11] Third, I was not satisfied on the evidence that the visa officer had failed to express to the applicant her concerns about the genuineness of his diploma. However, she seems in fact to have treated it as valid, and even if she did not, the validity of the diploma would have made no difference to the result because it still left the applicant with less than the minimum time prescribed for a qualifying apprenticeship.
[12] On the facts of this case the errors committed by the visa officer were immaterial to the decision since, having been found to lack the training requirements for the occupation of baker, the applicant was correctly awarded no units of assessment for experience, and was thus ineligible for a visa. I note, too, that the applicant was as many as ten units of assessment short of the required 70.
[13] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO John M. Evans
April 23, 1999. J.F.C.C.