Date: 19981027
Docket: IMM-132-98
BETWEEN:
YI JUN WU,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
WETSTON, J.
[1] The Applicant, a citizen of the Peoples' Republic of China, seeks judicial review of an immigration officer's decision in which her application for permanent residence to Canada was denied.
[2] The main argument of the Applicant is that the visa officer erred in finding that she did not have the required formal secretarial training to perform as an executive secretary and in characterizing her skills as those of an administrative clerk.
[3] I took the exceptional step and allowed a letter to be introduced during the judicial review proceeding that was not before the visa officer. As this is a judicial review, obviously this should occur only in exceptional cases and I did so because the question of courses for secretarial training was discussed at the interview. While the onus rests on the Applicant to provide the appropriate information in support of her application I felt that since the matter had been discussed, the letter would be of assistance to the Court in attempting to understand the nature and quality of the evidence provided to the visa officer at the interview. In any event, the Respondent contends that the Applicant was given full units of assessment for her education.
[4] My review of the evidence suggests that there is no basis to set aside the visa officer's decision. As indicated previously, while the onus is on the Applicant to provide the required supporting information, little weight can be attributed to the letter since there are few details with respect to the nature and content of the courses, the duration of the courses, nor are any of the results of these courses provided.
[5] In any event, it would appear that the visa officer considered the evidence before her, including whether or not the formal training requirements in the CCDO were satisfied. Her affidavit also clearly indicates that the Applicant's work history was considered. I see no error with respect to the visa officer's assessment of the facts before her, or the weight attributed thereto, nor do I view the letter as a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the visa officer erred in the exercise of her responsibilities. Furthermore, the onus is on the Applicant and I see no basis to set the decision aside on fairness grounds.
[6] In arriving at my decision in this matter, I have also considered the following authorities: Abbassi v. M.C.I. (August 17, 1998) IMM-477-98 (F.C.T.D.); Cai v. Canada (M.C.I.) (January 17, 1997) IMM-883-96; Lim v. M.E.I. (1991), 12 Imm.L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.); and Ou v. M.C.I. (August 15, 1997) IMM-2993-96 (F.C.T.D.).
[7] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
(Sgd.) "Howard I. Wetston"
Judge
Vancouver, British Columbia
October 27, 1998
FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-132-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: Yi Jun Wu
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
REASONS FOR ORDER OF WETSTON, J.
dated October 27, 1998
APPEARANCES BY:
| Mr. Anthony Norfolk for the Applicant |
| Barrister and Solicitor |
| Ms. Emilia Péch for the Respondent |
| Department of Justice |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Anthony R. Norfolk
Barrister & Solicitor
Vancouver, BC for the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg for the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada