Date: 19980722
Docket: IMM-4954-97
BETWEEN:
WAQAS AHMED CHAUDHRY,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J :
[1] The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan who has been residing in the United States since 1992, applied for permanent residence in Canada in the occupation of chef rotisseur. On October 20, 1997, the visa officer awarded the applicant 62 units of assessment and, as he did not meet the required 70 units, she refused his application. He challenges her assessment of three factors, namely education, language and experience.
Education
[2] With respect to his education, the applicant does not refute the visa officer's statement in her affidavit that he was aware that what he called a "college" in his application is only equivalent in Canada to the completion of secondary school allowing him entrance to university. Furthermore, it is quite clear that the applicant's apprenticeship did not entail one year of full-time study as required under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations, 19781 to merit 13 units of assessment. Thus, the visa officer's award of 10 units is correct.
Language
[3] In his application, the applicant claimed fluency in English. However, he agreed with the visa officer at the interview that he spoke English well but not fluently. Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 8(1)(b) the visa officer granted him 2 units for his ability to speak English well but not fluently. She also found that he could read English with difficulty and could not write English at all, and thus gave him no credit for that factor under paragraph 8(1)(c). There is no evidence that the visa officer's conclusions are perverse or capricious and due deference must be accorded to her decision.
Experience
[4] In his application, the applicant produced two letters of reference from restaurants in Chicago. The second letter from Payless Submarine and Restaurant was riddled with spelling errors. The visa officer concludes as follows in her affidavit:
| ...It does not seem credible that a restaurant that hires a chef would make so many spelling errors in writing a reference letter. I indicated this to the Applicant at his interview. |
[5] With reference to his experience, as a chef or a chef rotisseur, she states as follows in paragraph 13:
| 13. I have reviewed the assertion on [sic] the Applicant's Affidavit that he was entitled to eight points for experience as he had worked in his occupation for a period of five years. I wish to indicate that I advised the Applicant at his interview that by his explanation of his duties while working at these two establishments and because he had been unable to explain what he had learned during his training in Pakistan, I did not consider that he had experience either as a chef nor as a chef rotisseur. I do not see how the Applicant failed to understand why he was not granted any units of assessment for the experience factor as this was explained to the Applicant at his interview. Furthermore, as set out below in my Affidavit, it was explained to the Applicant that he did not meet the training requirements as a chef rotisseur or chef/cook, general in Canada. |
[6] She also adds as follows in paragraph 16:
| 16. Although the Applicant indicated that he had worked as a chef, I did not consider him to have experience as a chef because: |
| (a) his description of his duties as a chef rotisseur or chef general fell far short of the range of duties normally exercised by a chef as is set out in the CCDO; and |
| (b) although he may have been considered to have been trained as a chef in Pakistan, he clearly did not meet the minimum Canadian training and entry requirements for this occupation in Canada. As such although he was employed for five years in various facets of the cooking industry he was not employed as a chef or a chef rotisseur under Canadian Standards, and, therefore, he was awarded zero points for the experience factor. |
| I informed the Applicant at his interview that he did not meet the requirements of a chef rotisseur or a chef/cook general. |
[7] The visa officer's CAIPS notes show that she questioned him about his competence as a chef and went into details about his knowledge of meat and cooking. In her notes, she concluded that "none of his story is credible" and finally "he cannot explain anything about what he cooks, how he cooks, etc. He is not a chef".
Conclusions
[8] The findings of fact made by the visa officer, which were raised as issues by the applicant in his affidavit and memorandum of fact and law, as well as by his counsel's arguments at the hearing, all fall within the scope of the visa officer's expertise. Thus, her decisions on these points attract a high degree of deference from this Court on review unless the applicant establishes that the visa officer erred in interpreting legislation or made a patently unreasonable finding of fact2.
[9] The applicant has failed to establish any such error and, consequently, this application for judicial review is dismissed. Both parties and the Court agree that there is no question of general importance to be certified arising from this application.
OTTAWA, Ontario
July 22, 1998
Judge
__________________1 SOR/78-172.
2 See, e.g., Lim v. Canada (M.E.I.) (1989), 8 Imm. L.R. (2d) 261 (F.C.T.D.); aff'd (1991) 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 161 (F.C.A.).