Date: 19981014
Docket: IMM-106-98
Between:
LI YOUQIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated November 24, 1997, by a visa officer of the Commission for Canada in Hong Kong, refusing the applicant"s application for permanent residence for the following reasons:
| I have assessed you in the occupation of Executive Secretary, CCDO 4111111. However, based on your description of your experience and your training, you were determined not to qualify to undertake that occupation in Canada. |
| I have assessed you in the occupation of Administration Clerk, CCDO 4197-114, for which you earned the following units of assessment: |
| Age 10 |
| Occupational Demand 00 |
| Specific Vocational Preparation 05 |
| Experience 04 |
| Arranged Employment 00 |
| Demographic Factor 08 |
| Education 15 |
| English 09 |
| French 00 |
| Personal Suitability 05 |
| Total 56 |
| Subsection 11(2) of the Regulations sets out that a visa officer shall not issue a visa to an immigrant, if that immigrant fails to earn at least one unit of assessment for occupational demand. Unfortunately the demand assigned for your occupation at the time of your application was zero and it is zero now. I consider the units of assessment that you have earned are an accurate assessment of your ability to successfully establish in Canada. |
| Since sub-section 11(2) of the Regulations prohibits the issuance of an immigrant visa in your circumstances, you are a member of the class of persons who are inadmissible to Canada described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, 1976. I have, accordingly, refused your application . . . . |
[2] The applicant mainly disputes the Visa Officer"s assessment of the "Experience" factor. Specifically, she alleges that the Visa Officer used the tasks of the occupation of Secretary as criteria for the occupation of Executive Secretary. The applicant argues that the Visa Officer made an error of law by requiring that she fulfil the entry requirements for the occupation of Secretary.
[3] In my view, the applicant did not raise any issue that was not decided in Cai v. M.C.I. (January 17, 1997), IMM-883-96, Ou v. M.C.I.(August 15, 1997), IMM-2993-96 and Prasad v. M.C.I. (1996), 34 Imm.L.R. (2d) 91. One need only refer to the following passages in point. First, in Cai:
| . . . If, however, the visa officer ascertains that an applicant does not meet the criteria for the occupation under which he or she seeks to be assessed (in this case the formal training requirements for the occupation of executive secretary) as stipulated by the definition in the CCDO, it is not unreasonable, in my opinion, for the visa officer to hold that the applicant cannot be further assessed in that occupational category (see Prasad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3373-94, April 2, 1996 (F.C.T.D.)). |
| . . . |
| . . . Indeed, simply because the applicant herein may have performed some of the tasks performed by an executive secretary does not necessarily mean she is fully qualified to work in that capacity. |
| Consequently, it does not strike me as unreasonable that the visa officer considered as she did the Training and Entry Requirements for secretaries and executive secretaries specified in the CCDO, and then on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the said relevant requirements, declined to further assess the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada in the category of executive secretary. |
And in Ou:
| . . . The formal training requirements set out for certain occupations in the CCDO cannot simply be ignored. Nor is it inherently unreasonable for a visa officer to decline to further assess an applicant in an occupational category for which he or she has already determined the applicant to be ineligible because the individual lacks the requisite training. |
| It must be recalled that visa officers are specifically mandated to refer to the CCDO by the wording of factor 2, Schedule I of the Regulations, which provides for the allocation of units of assessment for Specific Vocational Preparation. The relevant provision reads as follows: |
| 2. Specific Vocational Preparation |
| To be measured by the amount of formal professional, vocational, apprenticeship, in-plant, or on-the-job training specified in the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations, printed under the authority of the Minister, as necessary to acquire the formation, techniques and skills required for average performance in the occupation in which the applicant is assessed under item 4 . . . . |
| . . . [T]he CCDO outlines specific training and entry requirements for Secretaries and Stenographers. The occupation of Executive Secretary is a sub-group within the occupation of secretary. The Training and Entry Requirements for Secretaries and Stenographers are as follows: |
| . . . |
| Thus, the CCDO makes it clear that the Specific Vocational Preparation for the positions of Secretary and Executive Secretary must have been obtained through the completion of formalized training in the skills required. |
[4] It is also important to remember that in Lim v. M.E.I. (1991), 121 N.R. 241, the Federal Court of Appeal held that a visa officer"s assessment for the purposes of determining whether an applicant"s qualifications are consistent with the CCDO is a question of fact entirely within the mandate of a visa officer to resolve. The applicant has not persuaded me that the Visa Officer"s decision was based on an erroneous finding of fact that was made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the available material.
[5] Last, the Visa Officer cannot be faulted for failing to assess the applicant"s work experience in a marketing-related occupation; nowhere in her application for permanent residence did the applicant refer to this particular occupation (see Hajariwala v. M.E.I. (1988), 23 F.T.R. 241).
[6] For all these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. I agree with counsel for the parties that there is no question here to be certified.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 14, 1998
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
Date: 19981014
Docket: IMM-106-98
Ottawa, Ontario, the 14th day of October 1998
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
Between:
LI YOUQIN
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER
The application for judicial review of the decision dated November 24, 1997, by a visa officer of the Commission for Canada in Hong Kong, refusing the applicant"s application for permanent residence, is dismissed.
YVON PINARD
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Peter Douglas
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-106-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: LI YOUQIN v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: October 7, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF PINARD J.
DATED October 14, 1998
APPEARANCES:
Pierre Masson FOR THE APPLICANT
Annie Van Der Meerschen FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pierre Masson FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada