Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-2859-96

BETWEEN:

     SHAUKAT ALI

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

CULLEN J.:

     This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the visa officer dated July 22, 1996 [hereinafter, the "decision"], in which the applicant's application for permanent residence [hereinafter, the "application for landing"] was refused.

     The applicant requests an Order for a Writ of Certiorari quashing the said decision, and an Order for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider and process the application for landing in a number of ways listed by the applicant's counsel.

     The basis of this application is that the visa officer improperly assessed the application for landing in relation to the occupation categories of "Cook, Foreign Food" and "Caterer."

THE FACTS

     The applicant is a national of Pakistan, and has resided in the United States since April, 1990. In October, 1995, he applied for permanent residence in Canada. On the application, he listed both his present occupation and his intended occupation in Canada as "caterer." He indicated that he had been working at the Nasheman Restaurant, Inc., in New York, as a caterer since June of 1994. The applicant deposes that he submitted a letter from his employer certifying his employment there, and stating that the applicant's job title is "caterer." The applicant also submitted a copy of his contract of employment, which stipulates that he is to do the work as a Cook and Caterer.

     On his application, the applicant also indicated that he had worked as a cook in two positions from January, 1987, to October, 1993. He deposes that he submitted reference letters from both of his former employers verifying his employment as a cook. One of the employers is in Pakistan, the other is in New York. He was described by the New York employer as "an expert cook for all Asian dishes."

     According to the affidavit of the visa officer, the applicant was paper-screened in the independent category as a Caterer, and was convoked for an interview on March 1, 1996 to assess his qualifications as such. The interview focussed on the applicant's academic and work experience to verify if he had the training and experience necessary to be considered as a Caterer. The visa officer goes into quite some detail about the applicant's statements regarding his experience as a cook. From her description, it is reasonable to conclude that the applicant had little or no experience as a cook. She also notes that he had no proof of employment as a cook in Pakistan.

     Concerning his work with the New York restaurant employer that described the applicant an "expert cook" in Asian dishes, the applicant could not describe the dishes on the menu, comment on which were the most popular, nor remember the names of the people he had worked with. The visa officer tried to call the number given on the reference letter, but there was never any answer.

     Concerning the applicant's work as a "caterer" at the Nasheman Restaurant, the visa officer concluded, as a result of the applicant's statements, that the applicant was simply a delivery man for that employer.

     The visa officer further deposes that she doubted the authenticity of the reference letters presented, and gave the applicant 30 days to submit more substantial evidence of his experience as a caterer or as a cook. On June 19, 1996, the applicant did submit some additional documents, but the visa officer concluded that the documents were not sufficient credible proof of experience as a caterer or as a cook.

     At the end of July, 1996, the applicant was informed that his application for landing had been refused, as he had received only 66 of the 70 points required pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 [hereinafter, the "Regulations"]. The applicant had been assessed as a Cook, Foreign Foods, and had not been awarded any points for experience. At page two of the refusal letter, the visa officer notes,

... You do not meet these [occupational] requirements because you could not provide any evidence of having experience in your chosen occupation, and admitted that you would not be able to obtain such evidence at interview.

The applicant was, therefore, inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act.

     It is not the place of this Court to make out the applicant's case for him. However, even with the most sympathetic interpretation possible that could be given to the applicant's case, there is no way that the applicant could succeed on the evidence. The visa officer's depositions are determinative of this case. Her conclusions are supported by the evidence, and explained in considerable detail. There is no error.

CONCLUSION

     Accordingly, after a careful review of all of the evidence before me, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the visa officer's assessment of the applicant's application for landing. The visa officer's negative assessments of credibility are fully supported by the evidence, as are her assessments regarding the work experience of the applicant. The visa officer correctly assessed the applicant's application for landing.

     This application for judicial review is dismissed.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO      B. Cullen

    

July 2, 1997.      J.F.C.C.