Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-2807-98
Ottawa, Ontario, this 30th day of April, 1999
Present : The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between :
NOLA MILLER
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision of Marlene Edmond, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York, U.S.A., dated June 12, 1998, in which she concluded the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the Independent category, is dismissed.
JUDGE
Date: 19990430
Docket: IMM-2807-98
Between :
NOLA MILLER
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of Marlene Edmond, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York, U.S.A., dated June 12, 1998, in which she concluded the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the Independent category.
[2] The applicant was awarded the following points by the visa officer in her refusal letter dated June 12, 1998:
| Age 10 |
| Occupational Demand 10 |
| S.V.P. 15 |
Experience 00
A.R.E. 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 00
English 02
French 00
Bonus 05
Suitability 03
TOTAL 53
[3] The visa officer also made the following comments:
- the applicant was only awarded two (2) units of assessment for English language as she spoke English well but wrote with difficulty;
- the applicant admitted that she only attended primary school and was therefore not given any points for education;
- the applicant did not provide any details about the type of training received at a Housecraft Training Centre in Kingston and stated that the genuineness of this document could not be verified as the school had closed down;
- the applicant admitted that her training at the Fah Sin Chinese Cooking School was only six weeks and not six months as indicated on her application;
- the applicant's reference letter stated she had worked for her employer for five years while her application form indicated she had worked for him for only two years and the applicant could not explain the discrepancy;
- the applicant does not have permission to work in Bermuda and yet she claimed that she had worked there from 1991 to 1996. In addition, the applicant admitted at the interview that she worked in Bermuda for her cousin and that she was merely helping her out and not really working there.
[4] In addition, the letter shows that the visa officer believed that several employment documents were improperly obtained and that she concluded that the applicant did not satisfy her that she had the level of knowledge which would ordinarily be expected from an experienced cook.
[5] The applicant's arguments are all related to pure questions of fact which were entirely within the mandate of a visa officer to resolve (see Lim v. M.E.I.(1991), 12 Imm.L.R. (2d) 161 at 163). In spite of the applicant's counsel's valiant efforts, I was not convinced, in light of the evidence, that the discretionary decision of the visa officer should be interfered with (see Chiu Chee To v. M.E.I. (May 22, 1996), A-172-93 and Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1).
[6] As it is clear from the refusal letter that the visa officer directed her mind to the proper question and that her conclusion was supported by the evidence, including the applicant's representations and the CCDO1 requirements, I find no reviewable error.
[7] Consequently, the application is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 30, 1999
__________________1 Canadian Classification and Directory of Occupations, the informational guide used by immigration officers in assessing applicants for landing under section 8 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172.