Date: 19980519
Docket: IMM-2365-97
B E T W E E N:
ABDUL RAUF BHATTI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.:
[1] By application for judicial review, the applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision of a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo, New York, dated April 11, 1997, by which the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada was refused. Counsel for the parties were heard in Toronto on May 8, 1998, when decision was reserved. After consideration of submissions then made, an order goes dismissing the application for judicial review, for the reasons that follow.
[2] The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan who has been a resident in the United States since 1993, made an application for permanent residence in Canada in September 1996. In the covering letter with his application, sent by his solicitors, and in his application, the applicant indicated that he was applying in the independent immigrant category, with his intended occupation in Canada that of a diesel mechanic, CCDO 8584-382. He was interviewed by a visa officer on April 7, 1997.
[3] In the course of his interview, the officer expressed serious concern that the applicant did not appear to qualify for selection as a diesel mechanic. The applicant was not able to answer basic questions about the work of such a mechanic, about certain basic parts of engines or about basic tools of a mechanic. He was not able to identify models of vehicles on which he claimed to have worked as a diesel mechanic, other than by the name of principal automobile and truck vehicle manufacturers. When the visa officer indicated his concern, the applicant referred to documents provided from his employers but he was not able to satisfy the reservations of the visa officer. The officer advised that he had great reservations about assessing the applicant in relation to the diesel mechanic occupation, but he did assess him in relation to this and in relation to the occupation motor vehicle mechanic helper, for which the applicant appeared more appropriately qualified.
[4] In relation to the occupation of diesel mechanic, the visa officer assigned 0 units of assessment for experience in light of the applicant's inability to describe his work in terms that indicated qualifications for the occupation. In assessing his application in relation to the occupation of motor vehicle mechanic helper, the visa officer assigned a total of 49 units of assessment, including 0 units for the occupational factor. That zero assessment reflected an absence of occupational demand for that job in Canada. With 0 units assigned for experience as a diesel mechanic, and 0 units assigned for the occupational factor and only 49 units in total in relation to the motor vehicle mechanic helper occupation, the applicant was advised at his interview that his application for permanent residence in Canada was refused. That was confirmed by the letter of April 11, 1997, setting out in writing the refusal and explaining the basis on which that decision was made.
[5] When this matter came on for hearing, on behalf of the applicant it was urged that he ought to have been considered in relation to an alternative occupation. I note that in his affidavit in support of the application for judicial review the applicant raises concern only that in view of his background he was not properly assessed in relation to the occupation of diesel mechanic. In written argument in support of the application for judicial review it is urged that the visa officer erred by failing to assess the applicant in the alternative occupation of automotive equipment maintenance repairer CCDO 8589-114. In support of that submission it is urged that the letter of reference from Bajwa Auto Repair Inc. in New York concerning the applicant's work from December 1993, provides sufficient basis for the visa officer to consider assessment in relation to the alternative occupation, proposed for the first time in connection with the application for judicial review. That letter simply certifies that the applicant was employed as a diesel mechanic repairing diesel engines for trucks and trailers. It then includes the sentence "In addition, he examines and repairs for trucks faulty equipment such as oil and gasoline pumps, air compressors and lubrication equipment". The CCDO automotive maintenance equipment serviceman classification describes the work in that occupation as "repairs and adjusts equipment used to service, repair and test automotive vehicles; Examines faulty equipment, such as oil or gasoline pumps, air compressors, lubrication equipment, ...."
[6] The argument raises an issue concerning the responsibility of a visa officer to assess fairly the alternative occupations, for which an applicant for permanent residence may have qualifications, that may be reasonably evident from the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant or from his or her interview. Where no request is made for assessment in relation to an intended occupation, either in the written application or in the interview of the applicant, and there is no occupation reasonably apparent as an alternative to that indicated as intended, either from the documentary evidence submitted or from the applicant's interview, in my opinion, the visa officer has no responsibility to assess other occupations that might subsequently be suggested.
[7] In the circumstances of this case, in my view, the visa officer acted reasonably in assessing the applicant for the intended occupation which he indicated on his application and for an alternative occupation for which the visa officer believed, after discussion with the applicant at his interview, the applicant was more qualified. There is no evidence on the record of his qualifications for the occupation automotive maintenance equipment serviceman other than the sentence quoted from his employer's letter. Indeed, in this case, on the basis of questions asked by the visa officer about his knowledge of parts of engines and of tools for repairing engines, and his apparent ignorance of those matters, the implication is that the applicant would hardly be qualified for the alternative occupation now suggested. However, that is not a determination I need make. It is sufficient to note that there was no request by the applicant and no reasonably apparent basis for assessing the applicant in the alternative occupation now suggested. The visa officer did not err nor did he fail to consider the applicant's application fairly when he did not consider the applicant in relation to the occupational classification automotive maintenance equipment serviceman.
[8] In the circumstances the application for judicial review is dismissed.
W. Andrew MacKay
_________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 19, 1998.