Date: 19990212
Docket: IMM-4494-97
BETWEEN:
MUMTAZ SAJID
Applicant
AND:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Reasons delivered orally from the Bench
on February 4, 1999 as edited)
McKEOWN, J.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of Robert McLeman, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Seattle, Washington, dated September 12, 1997, refusing the applicant"s application for permanent residence under the skilled workers program as an electrical wiring inspector.
[2] No one appeared for the applicant at the hearing. Counsel for the respondent was present. The applicant, in his factum, raised the issue as to whether the receipt of zero (00) units for the experience factor was not a finding of fact which was perverse. In the refusal letter, the visa officer stated:
| You asked to be assessed as an electrical wiring inspector, CCDO 8736110. You stated that you are presently employed in that capacity by Shani Construction Inc. of Washingtonville, NY, and provided a letter from that company as evidence of your experience. |
[3] The visa officer attempted to phone the two numbers provided and both numbers were now residential numbers and the people had no knowledge of Shani Construction Inc. or any of the other persons named by the applicant. The applicant explained that the company had recently moved to Washingtonville, and that the business was in fact the contractor working from his own home. The visa officer found it surprising that an independent contractor could afford to employ a full-time wiring inspector, particularly when the applicant had stated that he performed no electrician duties. The applicant was asked to produce evidence of his income in the previous year and he produced a computer printout from Internal Revenue Service stating that he earned less than $4,000 in the past year. The visa officer found that this was not an amount commensurate with the salary of fully employed wiring inspector. Accordingly, the visa officer stated:
... I find your claims to be employed in this capacity in the US and the reference letter you submitted to be unreliable.
[4] This finding was open to the visa officer on the evidence. Furthermore, as a result of this finding, the visa officer did not accept a letter from the Holiday Inn Hotel in Islamabad, stating that he had been employed as a wiring inspector from 1985 until 1994. Again, it was open to the visa officer to find this information unreliable. Therefore, there was no evidence before him to substantiate the applicant"s employment experience and furthermore, the applicant had no job to go to in Canada. Since the visa officer was unable to award any units of assessment for the factor of experience in this occupation, s. 11(1) of the Immigration Regulations applied. This section does not permit the issuance of an immigrant visa to applicants who have not been awarded any units of assessment for the factor or "experience in an occupation for which they are qualified and are prepared to follow in Canada", unless the immigrant has arranged employment in Canada and has a written statement from the proposed employer verifying that he is willing to employ an inexperienced person in the position in which the person is to be employed, and the visa officer is satisfied that the person can perform the work required without experience.
[5] Accordingly, the visa officer was correct in finding that the applicant came within the inadmissible class of persons described in para. 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act. The facts in this case are similar to the facts in Hamid v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-183-97, October 24, 1997 (F.C.T.D.).
[6] The duty of fairness was also met. The visa officer offered the applicant an opportunity to respond to his concerns about his references and the applicant was unable to satisfy his concerns.
[7] Therefore, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
William P. McKeown
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
February 12, 1999.