Date: 19980512
Docket: IMM-2589-97
B E T W E E N:
MOHAMMAD SHAKEEL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY, J.:
[1] By originating notice of motion, the applicant seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the decision, dated April 28, 1997, of a visa officer of the Canadian Consulate in New York rejecting the applicant's application for permanent residence. The applicant also seeks an order for a writ of mandamus directing that the respondent consider and process the applicant's application for permanent residence and provide the applicant a minimum of 70 points in accordance with the Immigration Regulations.
[2] In fact, the applicant was assigned a total of 70 units of assessment for the various factors assessed by the visa officer under the regulations; but he was assigned no points, that is, "0", for experience, in regard to his intended occupation, and any closely analogous alternative occupations. The officer concluded that he did not have experience as a cook, foreign foods, or as a cook, domestic, or as a cook-chef, general, despite letters indicating he had worked at various times as a "chef". Despite the total points assessed in relation to his qualifications, he did not qualify for an immigrant visa in light of s-s. 11(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 as amended, which specifies that a visa officer shall not issue an immigrant visa if the applicant in the independent category is not awarded any units of assessment for experience.
[3] It was also the visa officer's conclusion, after considering the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and after interviewing him, that he did not have the minimum training requirements of his intended occupation in Canada as a domestic cook, or cook, foreign foods, nor for any other cooking occupations for which there was at the time an occupational demand.
[4] While the application for judicial review raises the question of the units of assessment assigned generally to the applicant, it is essentially the assignment of "0" units for experience that gives rise to this application. As a secondary issue the applicant also urges that in light of his work experience he ought to have been assessed in relation to the occupation of chef, rotisseur and chef, saucier, but this argument is not seriously regarded in the face of the visa officer's evidence that he presented no evidence in documents or in his interview of his experience, or his interest, in relation to these occupations. Moreover, the visa officer did assess his application with reference to all closely analogous cook occupations for which there was occupational demand at the time, other than the two classes of chef now suggested.
[5] The evidence presented by the applicant of his experience as a chef, including his interview, indicated that his experience in Pakistan was in preparation of biriani and hamburgers, and for employers in the United States over seven years, his experience was limited to cooking donuts, pizzas, burgers, roast beef and chicken, at Dunkin Donuts, Pizza Hut and Roy Rogers establishments, and marinating roast beef, burgers and chicken at Lindy's Restaurant under the supervision of a head cook. On the basis that this activity was that of a food preparer or fast food cooker or under supervision the visa officer considered it did not qualify as experience as a chef in the intended occupation or alternate cooking occupations for which there was occupational demand.
[6] I am not persuaded that the visa officer's assessment, in particular for experience of the applicant in relation to his intended occupation, can be said to be unreasonable, or made in bad faith or unfairly, or without regard to the evidence before her. Assessing units in relation to an applicant's qualifications for purposes of considering an application in the independent class for admission to Canada, is not an easy task. It is one within the discretion of the visa officer, and unless it is clearly exercised in error, the Court will not intervene.
[7] Since I am not persuaded that the visa officer here acted unreasonably or otherwise in error, an order issued, following the hearing, dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review.
W. Andrew MacKay
_____________________________
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 12, 1998