Date: 19981014
Dossier: IMM-106-98
Entre :
LI YOUQIN
Requérante
- et -
LE MINISTRE DE LA CITOYENNETÉ
ET DE L'IMMIGRATION
Intimé
MOTIFS DE L'ORDONNANCE
LE JUGE PINARD :
[1] La demande de contrôle judiciaire vise une décision rendue le 24 novembre 1997 par un agent des visas de la Commission canadienne de Hong Kong refusant la demande de résidence permanente de la requérante pour les motifs suivants:
| 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: |
|
| Specific Vocational Preparation 05 |
|
| 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] La requérante reproche essentiellement à l'agent des visas son évaluation du critère "Expérience". Elle lui reproche particulièrement d'avoir utilisé les critères des tâches propres à la profession de secrétaire dans la profession de secrétaire de direction. La requérante argumente que l'agent des visas a commis une erreur de droit en exigeant qu'elle rencontre les conditions d'admission de la profession de secrétaire.
[3] À mon avis, la requérante ne soulève aucune question qui n'ait été décidée dans les affaires Cai c. M.C.I. (17 janvier 1997), IMM-883-96, Ou c. M.C.I.(15 août 1997), IMM-2993-96 et Prasad c. M.C.I. (1996), 34 Imm.L.R. (2d) 91. Qu'il suffise de référer aux extraits pertinents suivants. D'abord, dans 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. |
|
Et dans l'affaire 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] Il importe aussi de rappeler que dans l'affaire Lim c. M.E.I. (1991), 121 N.R. 241, la Cour d'appel fédérale a conclu que l'évaluation entreprise par l'agent des visas aux fins de décider si les qualifications d'un requérant sont conformes à la CCDP est une question de fait qui relève de la compétence exclusive de l'agent des visas. À cet égard, la requérante ne m'a pas convaincu que l'agent des visas a rendu une décision fondée sur une conclusion de faits erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments disponibles.
[5] Enfin, on ne saurait reprocher à l'agent des visas de ne pas avoir évalué l'expérience de travail de la requérante en fonction d'une profession reliée au marketing, la requérante n'ayant référé nulle part, dans sa demande de résidence permanente, à cette profession particulière (voir Hajariwala c. M.E.I. (1988), 23 F.T.R. 241).
[6] Pour toutes ces raisons, la demande de contrôle judiciaire est rejetée. Je suis d'accord avec les procureurs des parties qu'il n'y a pas ici matière à certification.
JUGE
OTTAWA (ONTARIO)
Le 14 octobre 1998