Date: 19990105
Docket: IMM-1330-98
BETWEEN:
QIONG TAO WU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Edited version of reasons delivered from the Bench
on Tuesday, January 5, 1999 at Toronto, Ontario)
REED J.
[1] I have not been persuaded that there is any ground upon which I could set aside the visa officer's decision. I agree with Mr. Rosenblatt that his client is not an office clerk. She is closer to what in this country we would call an executive assistant. She carries the title in China of Executive Secretary. She assists the President of the Agricultural Bank of China. In many countries the word "Secretary" is used to describe a fairly senior position in an organization. The visa officer was correct in focusing on the applicant's occupational experience and training rather than on the title her present job carries.
[2] I agree with Mr. Rosenblatt that the visa officer treated the requirements of typing skill and shorthand (or some other method of taking verbatim transcripts of discussions that occur at meetings) as pre-requisites for employment in Canada as an executive secretary. I do not think this offends the statements in Muntean v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (1995), 31 Imm. L.R. (2d) 18 (F.C.T.D.) at 22. In that decision, Mr. Justice Cullen stated that job descriptions in the CCDO should be broadly construed and that not every duty set out therein need be performed:
| ... job descriptions in the CCDO should be broadly considered and ... an applicant need not perform all of the tasks in the description to qualify in a particular occupational category. If a visa officer mechanically adhered to the CCDO descriptions and demanded that an applicant has performed each described job duty, it could be said that the visa officer would be fettering his or her discretion. |
[3] The fact that not all duties in a CCDO description need be performed does not mean that the ability to perform some are not essential to an occupation. The chapter of the CCDO (4111), in which Executive Secretary is found as a sub-category, is entitled "Secretaries and Stenographers". The "Work Performed" by those filling the occupations found in that chapter is described in the opening paragraph of the chapter. It described what follows as "occupations concerned with taking dictation by shorthand, steno-type machine or dictaphone, transcribing data by typewriter, and performing general office duties." The visa officer's decision, that the applicant lacked "the most basic skills germane to the occupation" of executive secretary because she does not type (she scored 18 w.p.m. on the typing test she was given) and she does not take shorthand of have steno skills, is not a fettering of his discretion or a misevaluation of the evidence. The CCDO supports the conclusion these are basic skills necessary to fulfil the position of a secretary in Canada. The visa officer was not merely imposing his own personal views on the evaluation.
[4] With respect to the argument based on the decision in Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 222 (F.C.T.D.), I am not persuaded that the visa officer referred only to the applicant's training in making his decision. His refusal letter of February 12, 1998 states that he assessed the applicant in the occupation of Executive Secretary, but based on her "experience and training" she was determined not to qualify. He then moved on to assess her in the occupation of Office Clerk, an occupation that was clearly inappropriate given the applicant's experience and educational training, although he was probably only doing his duty in trying to find some other category in the CCDO into which the applicant might fit. The Lee decision dealt with a case in which the visa officer had considered that the person's lack of formal training disqualified her from a certain occupation despite the fact that she had had many years experience in that occupation. As noted, the visa officer did not take that approach in this case.
[5] The applicant had submitted evidence that she had completed a training course (July 1996 to January 1997) in which she had studied computer (120 hours), english (150 hours), and composition (50 hours). The visa officer considered this certificate and stated that the bulk of the training was english and basic computer skills: "this training does not/not meet minimum threshold per CCDO [requirements]". The applicant claims she also submitted another certificate, which does not appear in the record. This certificate attests to her completion of a training course, taken from March 10, 1997 to April 7, 1997, consisting of computer training with respect to Windows '95, Word 6.0, Excel, and Dvter Net [sic]. The visa officer states that he never saw this certificate. The applicant states that she provided it to him. The visa officer states that even if he had seen it he would still not have altered his assessment. There was, in any event, evidence before the visa officer that referred to the applicant's completion of this program (in her personal history and in her employer's letter of reference).
[6] I could not conclude, even if the second certificate was lost from the official record, that this is an error that would justify setting aside the visa officer's decision. The second certificate does not relate to or fill, in any way, the lacunae that exist in the applicant's training and experience with respect to the basic skills required for employment as an Executive Secretary.
[7] The application is therefore dismissed.
"B. Reed"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
January 5, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1330-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: QIONG TAO WU |
and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND |
IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED, J.
DATED: TUESDAY, JANUARY 5, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Mark Rosenblatt
For the Applicant
Ms. Bridget O'Leary
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Rosenblatt Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
10th Flor., 1000-335 Bay St.
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 2R3
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990105
Docket: IMM-1330-98
Between:
QIONG TAO WU
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER