Date: 19990603
Docket: IMM-6125-98-
BETWEEN:
LI MAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
CULLEN, J.:
[1] The applicant seeks to set aside the decision, dated 21 September 1998, made by designated immigration officer L. Wong of the Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong in which the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was denied.
[2] Background
The applicant, Li Man, is a citizen of the Peoples" Republic of China. She applied for permanent residence in the independent category and requested that she be assessed under the occupation of social worker (NOC 4152.0). She was interviewed on 17 September 1998 and was subsequently informed by the letter in question that her application had been refused. The relevant part of the immigration officer"s letter reads as follows:
I have assessed you in the occupations Social Worker, NOC 4152.0. However, based on your description of your experience and your training you were determined not to qualify to undertake these occupations in Canada.
As explained at the interview, I am not satisfied that you meet the employment requirements for your intended occupation Social Worker per the National Occupational Classification as follows:
-a bachelor"s degree in social work
(Applicant"s application record, tab 2, p. 13)
[3] The immigration officer proceeded to assess the applicant under the occupation Labour Relations Clerk, NOC 1442.0. The applicant earned only 55 units of assessment, and no units were awarded under occupational demand. Accordingly, the applicant"s application was denied.
[4] Parties" Submissions
The applicant submits that there is no bachelor of social work degree in China; social workers receive their training in law, and earn a bachelor of law degree. The applicant argues that where formal training for a given occupation does not exist in the applicant"s country, it is improper for the immigration officer to place sole emphasis on formal training. A program of study should be assessed on the basis of standards that exist in the country of study.
[5] The applicant submits that she provided the immigration officer with descriptions of her job duties as a social worker in China, and the immigration officer failed to properly assess this information. The applicant contends that the immigration officer interpreted the Immigration Regulations in such a narrow fashion so as to render meeting the qualifications virtually impossible, thus breaching her duty of procedural fairness.
[6] The applicant also argued at the hearing that the visa officer should have assessed the applicant under one of the alternative or related occupations listed under Social Worker, such as family and marriage counsellor. At the very least, argues the applicant, when a visa officer assesses alternative occupations, she should do so in relation to those with capable of being awarded some units of assessment for occupational demand.
[7] The respondent submits that this issue was not raised in the applicant"s memorandum of argument and is therefore not properly before the Court. Notwithstanding this, however, the respondent submits that the CAIPS notes and the decision letter make it clear that the visa officer took into consideration all of the experience factors raised by the applicant and quite properly investigated other occupational options. The visa officer has no obligation to assess an applicant under a category with greater than zero occupational demand points, but rather must go by whatever categories of occupation correspond with the applicant"s qualifications and experience.
[8] The respondent maintains that the immigration officer took into account all of the material submitted by the applicant and determined, on the basis of this evidence, that the applicant had not established that she met the conditions of the category under which she sought entry. The respondent submits that the occupation of social worker has a specific employment requirement, viz. a bachelor"s degree in social work. The respondent argues that the applicant cannot rely on her employment experience in order to satisfy an educational requirement for employment.
[9] Analysis
The occupation of social worker is described in the NOC as follows:
| Social Workers treat social functioning difficulties, provide counselling, therapy and referral to other supportive social services, and evaluate child development and the adequacy of child care. They are employed by hospitals, school boards, social service agencies, welfare organizations and correctional facilities, and may also work in private practice. |
[10] The employment requirements include a bachelor of social work degree and, in Alberta, a master"s degree in social work. These requirements are mandatory.
[11] The immigration officer consulted the NOC description of social worker and concluded that the applicant did not possess one of the stated employment requirements. Nothing in the NOC"s wording with regard to employment requirements for social workers allows for a substitution such as the applicant suggests and, accordingly, the applicant"s work experience could not operate as a substitute for the required bachelor of social work degree.
[12] The applicant bears the onus of satisfying the immigration officer that she has met the requirements set out in the Immigration Act, and the immigration officer has no duty to request that evidence or further evidence be produced: Hajariwala v. Canada (MEI), [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (T.D.); Prasad v. Canada (MEI) (1996), 34 Imm.L.R. (2d) 91 (F.C.T.D.); and Asghar v. Canada (MCI) (IMM-2114-96, 21 August 1997) (F.C.T.D.). Moreover, the applicant"s argument that a visa officer has an obligation to assess a prospective immigrant only in those occupations which have a positive occupational demand obscures the visa officer"s role, which is to assess the applicant under the applicant"s stated occupation, as well as any others with which the applicant"s qualifications and experience correspond.
[13] Nothing in the record indicates that the immigration officer breached her duty of fairness. During the interview, it was brought to the applicant"s attention that she did not appear to meet the employment requirement of having a bachelor of social work degree. She merely replied that in China, social workers are trained in law. The applicant has the onus of providing the immigration officer with documents or other evidence to support her application, and she was given an opportunity to respond to the immigration officer"s concerns. However, she failed to provide any evidence to support her contention that her bachelor of law degree can be equated with a bachelor of social work degree.
[14] Accordingly, this application for judicial review is dismissed..
Ottawa, Ontario B. Cullen
| June 3, 1999. J.F.C.C. |