Date: 20000517
Docket: IMM-1427-99
Between :
SHAUKAT ALI KHAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of W. Apesland, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Los Angeles, California, dated February 11, 1999, determining that the applicant came within the inadmissible class of persons described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, and refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The applicant was assessed based on the requirements for the occupations of Telecommunication Equipment Technologist (NOC 7246.4) and Telecommunication Sales Representative (NOC 6112.0). In the latter occupation, the applicant received insufficient units of assessment to pass the selection interview. In the former, he was awarded the following units:
| Age 10 |
Occupational Factor 01
SVP 15
Experience 04
ARE 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 13
English 09
French 00
Bonus 00
Suitability 06
Total 66 Units (out of the required 70)
[3] The only relevant issue raised before me at the hearing was whether the visa officer erred in awarding the applicant four units of assessment for the experience factor.
[4] Discretionary decisions of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications command deference. In Chiu Chee To v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (May 22, 1996), A-172-93, the Federal Court of Appeal adopted the standard set out by the Supreme Court of Canada at pages 7 and 8 of Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2:
| . . . It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. . . . |
[5] With respect to the experience factor, the applicant argues that his ten years of experience in his intended occupation warrant six units of assessment. In my opinion, this argument is not persuasive. In Yu v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 36 F.T.R. 296, my colleague Justice MacKay established that an applicant's experience in his intended occupation cannot be assessed favourably under Schedule I if the applicant lacks the specific vocational preparation for that occupation. He wrote, at page 304:
| . . . Experience in an occupation is to be assessed, but as I have noted, my own reading of the method of assessment set out in Schedule I of the Regulations requires more than an assessment of experience in the designated occupation. It requires assessment of the specific vocational preparation required for entry to that occupation in Canada. Moreover, where it is concluded, as it was here, that the applicant lacks the specific vocational preparation expected in Canada, years of experience in the occupation elsewhere cannot count towards the units required for assessment in meeting the criteria for admission. |
[6] Here, the visa officer determined that the applicant had not met the training requirements for his intended occupation. With the exception of two three- to five-month courses at the Tri-Star Pager Training School, the applicant had no formal training or apprenticeship experience and he had not completed any high school, college or industry related courses. Since there is nothing in the Tribunal Record indicating that the applicant has met the education and training requirements of his intended occupation, and since the applicant did not argue that he has met these requirements, I do not think the visa officer committed a reviewable error in his decision to award four units of assessment for the experience factor. In any event, even if the visa officer had awarded the maximum six units of assessment for the experience factor, the applicant would have obtained only a total of 68 units out of the required 70.
[7] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 17, 2000