Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980219


Docket: IMM-2586-97

BETWEEN:

     SAJID HAFIZ MALIK

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

McGILLIS, J.

[1]      The applicant has challenged the decision of a visa officer that he did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada as a permanent resident.

[2]      In assessing the applicant's application for permanent residence, the visa officer interviewed the applicant. During the course of the interview, she raised with him all of her concerns relating, among other things, to his training and experience in the occupations of Chef, Rotisseur and Sales Promotion Administrator. Following the interview, the visa officer concluded that the applicant did not have the necessary training to meet the requirements of a Chef, Rotisseur, and that he lacked the necessary training and experience as a Sales Promotion Administrator.

[3]      Counsel for the applicant argued, among other things, that the visa officer erred in determining that the applicant did not have sufficient training and experience from working in restaurants to meet the necessary requirements. I cannot accept that argument. In my opinion, it was reasonably open to the visa officer, on the basis of the evidence adduced in the record, to conclude that the applicant required formal training as a chef in order to meet the requirements for a Chef, Rotisseur, and that his "on the job" training and experience were not sufficient in the circumstances. It was also reasonably open to the visa officer to conclude that the applicant did not meet the qualifications of a Sales Promotion Administrator. In the circumstances, my intervention in this matter is not warranted.

[4]      The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.

"D. McGillis"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

February 19, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                          IMM-2586-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      SAJID HAFIZ MALIK

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:                  FEBRUARY 18, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:              McGILLIS, J.

DATED:                          FEBRUARY 19, 1998

APPEARANCES:                 

                             Mr. Yossi Schwartz

                            

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. David Tyndale

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:         

                             Roach, Schwartz & Associates

                             688 St. Clair Avenue West

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M6C 1B1

                                 For the Applicant

                             George Thomson

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                  For the Respondent


                                                                            FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
                                             Date: 19980219
                                             Docket: IMM-2586-97
                                                                          BETWEEN:
                                                                 
                                             SAJID HAFIZ MALIK
                                                  Applicant
                                             - and -
                                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
                                             AND IMMIGRATION
                                                  Respondent
                                            
                                                         
                                                                                                                      REASONS FOR ORDER
                                            

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.