Date: 19980706
Docket: IMM-2079-97
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED NASSEM OMAR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD A.C.J.:
[1] This is an application to review and set aside a decision of an Immigration Officer dated April 14, 1997, wherein the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.
[2] The applicant obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada, a total of 61 out of a minimum requirement of 70.
[3] The applicant was assessed for both the occupation of Caterer (CCDO 6121 121) and that of Managing Supervisor, Dining Establishment (CCDO 6120 110).
[4] Assessing units in relation to an applicant"s qualifications for admission to Canada is within the discretion of the visa officer, and unless it is clearly exercised in error, the Court will not intervene1.
[5] The applicant alleges that because the visa officer placed excessive emphasis on the cooking requirement for the occupation of Caterer, he neglected to evaluate other aspects related to that occupation.
[6] The Canadian Classification Descriptive Occupations (CCDO) records the primary duties and responsibilities for a Caterer as being the preparation, cooking and service of foods for parties, banquets and meetings held in private houses and other establishments. The focus on "hands on" preparation of foods is reinforced by further reference to the CCDO duties of Chef-Cook, General (CCDO 6121 111).
[7] Therefore, although there are other related duties such as liaison with potential customers, planning of menus, arranging for appropriate supplies and service for both of these occupations, the clear focus is on actual food preparation, as well as service and clean-up.
[8] The affidavits disclose contradictory references to the applicant's experience in these functions. However, the record discloses employment certificates indicating that employment of the applicant was that of waiter and manager only.
[9] The application was specifically asked about his experience as a cook. He offered little explanation and no additional documents.
[10] From July 1987 to June 1991, the applicant worked at the Semiramis Intercontinental Hotel. The record discloses his duties and responsibilities as receiving and assisting the customers; taking their order and assemble them properly; handling customers complaints and hosting party celebrations i.e. Birthday, Wedding and Anniversaries.
[11] From May 1991 to May 1992, the applicant worked at the Pearl Hotel. The record discloses his duties and responsibilities as maintaining the standard of the quality of food and cleanliness of the restaurant; responsibility for the production during peak and low period of time; scheduling and deployment of the crews, checking and controlling of stocks deliveries, also in charge of the store in the absence of the store manager.
[12] The record also discloses his duties and responsibilities as a Manager at a Pizza Hut Franchise Restaurant from September 1992 to the date of his application as follows: maintaining the standard and the quality of food and cleanliness of the restaurant, responsible for the production during peak and low periods, scheduling and deployment of the crews, check and control of stock deliveries, responsible for the store.
[13] The visa officer"s opinion that the applicant had no experience as a caterer and that he could not deliver an immigrant visa under that occupation pursuant to subsection 11(1) of the Regulations, is reasonable and is not arbitrary. There are no grounds to warrant judicial review.
[14] The visa officer found that, due to the applicant"s occupational background, he could be considered for the occupation of Managing Supervisor, Dining Establishment.
[15] However, the visa officer determined that the applicant did not qualify for immigration in Canada under the occupation of Managing Supervisor, Dining Establishment, since pursuant to subsection 11(2) of the Regulations, there was no occupational demand for this occupation.
[16] This was a question of fact entirely within the mandate of the visa officer1.
[17] The applicant has failed to show that the visa officer erred in the exercise of his functions or breached the rules of procedural fairness.
[18] Accordingly, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
____________________________
Associate Chief Justice
Ottawa, Ontario
July 6, 1998
__________________1 Shakeel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (12 May 1998), IMM-2589-97 (F.C.T.D.), MacKay J.
2 See: Lim v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.).