Date: 20000628
Docket: IMM-6159-98
BETWEEN:
DENZIL D"MELLO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application pursuant to subsection 82.1(1) of the Immigration Act1 for judicial review of the decision of the visa officer Merrill Clarke, dated September 8,1998 and communicated to the Applicant on September 23, 1998, wherein the said officer refused the Applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] On April 12, 1997 the Applicant submitted his application for permanent residence in Canada under the independent category and sought to be assessed as Sales Promotion Administrator (CCDO-1179-154).
[3] The Applicant, a citizen of India, obtained a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Jabalpur in 1982. In 1984, the Applicant joined Mohammed Abdul Gani Trading Co. in Dubai as Sales Executive in the consumer products division. In his application for permanent residence in Canada the Applicant described his duties as follows: "sales promotions, negotiations with suppliers for prompt deliveries, quality, prices etc".2
[4] Since 1990, the Applicant has been employed by Armada Distribution as a Sales Executive.
[5] On October 19 ,1997 the Applicant"s application passed a paper screening wherein it was also determined that an interview was necessary. The Applicant was interviewed on August 6, 1998 in Dubai.
VISA OFFICER"S DECISION
[6] The visa officer, Merrill Clarke, assessed the Applicant under the occupation of Sales Promotion Administrator CCDO 1179-154 and determined that the duties carried out by the Applicant in his previous employment, based on his description, did not qualify him as a Sales Promotion Administrator. The visa officer, therefore awarded the Applicant 0 units under the Experience Factor.
[7] The Applicant received the following units of assessment under the Sales Promotion Administrator (CCDO):
| Age 10 |
| Occupational Demand 01 |
| SVP 15 |
| Experience 00 |
| Arranged Employment 00 |
| Demographic Factor 08 |
| Education 15 |
| English 09 |
| French 00 |
| Bonus (close relative in Canada) 00 |
| Personal Suitability 03 |
| TOTAL: 61 |
[8] The visa officer also evaluated the Applicant against the National Occupation Classification (NOC) system and concluded that the Applicant would not receive the required number of units of assessment.
[9] Given that subsection 11(1) of the Immigrant Regulations3 does not permit the issuance of an immigrant visa to applicants who have not been awarded any units of assessment for the factor of experience, the visa officer determined that the Applicant does not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.
ANALYSIS
[10] The Applicant submits that the visa officer erred in law by failing to ask pertinent questions related to the Applicant"s qualifications, skills and experience.
[11] It should be recalled however that the onus rests with the Applicant to satisfy the visa officer of the existence of all the pertinent information in regard to his application. This principle has been clearly established by this Court in Harajiwala v. Canada (M.C.I.)4 and subsequently followed in case-law.
[12] During the interview the visa officer asked the Applicant to discuss the nature of his previous job and the duties performed. The Applicant was therefore afforded ample opportunity to put his work experience before the visa officer.
[13] In addition, as declared by Muldoon, J. in Abbasi v. Canada (M.C.I.),5 the visa officer is not required to go on a "fishing expedition" to pull information from the Applicant such that he can fall within his intended occupation".6
[14] Moreover, in assessing the Applicant"s experience the visa officer must determine whether the Applicant has performed the substantial requirements of the intended occupation.7 In the case at bar, the visa officer compared the description of the Applicant"s duties in his previous jobs with the description in the CCDO under Sales Promotion Administrator and concluded that the Applicant"s experience coincides more with the occupation of a Sales Representative. Thus, I do not find that the visa officer erred in law by failing to ask pertinent questions related to the Applicant"s qualifications, skills and experience.
[15] The Applicant also argues that the visa officer breached procedural fairness in the assessment of the Applicant"s personal suitability. In assessing personal suitability the visa officer asked the Applicant whether in his three prior visits to Canada he had conducted any research on market conditions. The Applicant"s response was that "he had been to supermarkets, there is scope". Given that the personal suitability factor is intended to be a basket clause encompassing a general concern with the Applicant"s ability to successfully survive economically in Canada,8 I am of the view that the question posed by the visa officer was indeed relevant in assessing the Applicant"s motivation, initiative or resourcefulness.
[16] Finally, the Applicant argues that the visa officer erred in not assessing the Applicant for alternate occupations in the CCDO and NOC. However, the visa officer"s affidavit clearly states that the officer assessed the Applicant against various alternative occupations. I am thus of the opinion that the visa officer did not err in this regard.
[17] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 28, 2000.
__________________2 Applicant "s Application Record at 47 [hereinafter AAR].
4 [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (F.C.T.D.).
5 (21 August 1998), IMM-477-98 (F.C.T.D.).
7 Muntean v. Canada (M.C.I.)(1995), 103 F.T.R. 12. (F.C.T.D.).
8 Hussain v. Canada (M.C.I.), (1997), 36 Imm. L.R. (2d) 232.