Date: 19990910
Docket: IMM-5163-98
BETWEEN:
BIBI NERRISSA LALL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
SHARLOW J.:
[1] The applicant Bibi Nerrissa Lall seeks admission to Canada as a cook (NOC classification 6242). Her application was refused by a visa officer after a paper screening, without an interview, on the basis that Ms. Lall did not meet the employment requirements for a cook as set out in the relevant NOC classification.
[2] The NOC employment requirements for a cook include the completion of a three year apprenticeship program for cooks, or the completion of a college or other program in cooking, or several years of commercial cooking experience. Any one of these three alternatives would suffice.
[3] The visa officer was required to assess whether Ms. Lall's training or experience fits into one of these three descriptions. In doing so, he was entitled to bear in mind that the three alternatives are intended to be approximately equivalent to each other.
[4] Counsel for Ms. Lall argues that the visa officer erred in concluding that Ms. Lall did not meet the second requirement (completion of a college or other program in cooking) or alternatively the third requirement (several years commercial cooking experience).
[5] With respect to the second requirement, Ms. Lall has completed two cooking courses totalling three months in duration. The visa officer concluded that completion of these two courses was not the completion of a program in cooking. I find nothing unreasonable about this conclusion. There is no evidence that these courses are part of a program or comprise a program in cooking. It was open to the visa officer to conclude that Ms. Lall's two courses are not the approximate equivalent of a college program in cooking, a three year apprenticeship in cooking, or several years of commercial cooking experience.
[6] With respect to the third requirement, Ms. Lall has nearly ten years of experience as a domestic cook, including cooking for parties of up to 100 people. The visa officer concluded that this was not commercial cooking experience.
[7] Counsel for Ms. Lall argues that because Ms. Lall makes her living as a cook, her experience is commercial. Counsel for the Minister argues that domestic cooking experience does not come with the ordinary meaning of commercial cooking experience. In support of this interpretation he points to the opening words of the NOC category:
| Cooks prepare and cook a wide variety of foods. They are employed in restaurants, hotels, hospitals and other health care institutions, central food commissaries, educational institutions and other establishments. Cooks are also employed aboard ships and at construction and logging camp sites. |
[8] On this point I agree with counsel for the Minister. Ms. Lall's experience was not earned in a commercial context or an institutional setting that could be seen as analogous to a commercial context. I find nothing unreasonable in the visa officer's conclusion that Ms. Lall did not have commercial cooking experience.
[9] The application for judicial review will be dismissed. As no costs were sought, none are awarded. No certified question was suggested.
"Karen R. Sharlow"
JUDGE
TORONTO, ONTARIO
September 10, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-5163-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: BIBI NERRISSA LALL |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: SHARLOW J. |
| DATED: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1999 |
| APPEARANCES: Ms. Shoshana T. Green |
For the Applicant
Mr. David Tyndale
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Green and Spiegel
Barristers & Solicitors
121 King Street West
Suite 2200, P.O. Box 114
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:19990910
Docket: IMM-5163-98
Between:
| BIBI NERRISSA LALL |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |