Date: 19980525
Docket: IMM-3123-97
Between :
LOURDES ALVAREZ DE LA CADENA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of visa officer Virginia Hughes of the Canadian Consulate General at Seattle, U.S.A., dated June 24, 1997, in which she determined that the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Mexico. She made an application for permanent residence in the Independent category in June, 1996, with the intended occupation of social worker. Her application included her two children. The applicant was interviewed in Seattle, Washington, on March 12, 1997.
[3] The visa officer concluded that the applicant had obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada, and was therefore a member of the class of persons who are inadmissible to Canada described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act.
[4] It is the applicant's submission that she was denied a full and fair hearing when the visa officer discouraged her from relying on an interpreter. She also argues that the visa officer failed to properly assess her experience in relation to her intended occupation of Social Worker (CCDO 2331-124), and that the visa officer's decision should have reflected an assessment in that intended occupation.
[5] With respect to the issue of interpretation, it would appear from the record that the applicant first indicated that she could speak, read and write English "fluently". However, the applicant appeared for her scheduled interview with an English-Spanish interpreter. The visa officer explains in her Affidavit that she encouraged the applicant to attempt the interview on her own in order to allow her the opportunity to fully demonstrate her language abilities. Given that the applicant was managing very well without the interpreter, the visa officer encouraged her to dismiss him. According to the visa officer, at no time did the applicant appear to be flustered or upset, nor did she give any indication that she felt she was experiencing difficulty in expressing herself.
[6] In my view, this is a sufficient response to the applicant's claim that she should have been allowed to rely on her interpreter (see Zhu v. Canada (M.C.I.) (May 16, 1997), IMM-2633-96).
[7] With respect to the issue of assessment, the visa officer describes her assessment of the applicant's work experience at paragraphs 12 and 13 of her Affidavit. I see no reason to interfere with the visa officer's determination that the applicant's experience does not qualify her as a Social Worker. The visa officer questioned her with respect to her work experience, and allowed her to describe her duties in respect to each of her positions. The visa officer examined this information and the appropriate references in the CCDO in arriving at her conclusion.
[8] Moreover, there is no evidence that the visa officer failed to make a separate assessment under each occupation as requested in the application. I see no merit to the applicant's argument that the visa officer categorized her social worker experience as child-care worker experience. Unlike in Dhaliwal v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1992), 52 F.T.R. 311 or Fong v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1990), 11 Imm.L.R. (2d) 205 (F.C.T.D.), the applicant was questioned in respect of each occupation.
[9] I find that the visa officer has not failed to apply the law or to exercise her duty of fairness in this respect.
[10] Finally, I also find that the applicant's argument that the visa officer's decision should have reflected an assessment in her intended occupation must fail. The respondent clarifies that the evidence on the record as a whole reflects that the applicant was also assessed in her intended occupation of "Social Worker". Only because she was found not to have the minimum requisite experience did the refusal letter not detail this assessment. If the visa officer concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for her intended occupation as defined in the CCDO, it was not unreasonable for her to turn her mind to another occupational category (see, for instance, Cai v. Canada (M.C.I.) (January 17, 1997), IMM-883-96; Ou v. Canada (M.C.I.) (August 15, 1997), IMM-2993-96; and Raja v. Canada (MC.I.) (April 2, 1998), IMM-1761-97). In fact, the applicant admits in her Affidavit that the visa officer advised her that she did not meet the requirements for the occupation of Social Worker, and that she would therefore be assessed in the occupation of Child-Care Worker.
[11] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[12] The case raises no question of general importance for the purpose of certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 25, 1998