Date: 19990608
Docket: IMM-4989-98
Between :
CLAUDIO GOMEZ
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant is seeking an order setting aside the decision of Gretchen Hafterson, a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Seattle, Washington, dated August 19, 1998 wherein the said officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in the assisted relative category as a diesel mechanic (CCDO 8584-382) and diesel engine repairer (CCDO 8581-114).
[2] The refusal letter reads in part as follows:
| You requested that you be assessed as a diesel mechanic. However, your actual work experience and duties as you described them does not match to any significant degree the description of a diesel mechanic as given in the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations; they most closely match the description given for gasoline and diesel engine repairer. . . . Accordingly, I did not award you any units of assessment for the factor of experience when assessing you in the occupation of diesel mechanic. . . . |
| Assessed as an engine repairer, the occupation which best matches your experience as you described it, you have obtained insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada. I was unable to locate any occupation which would give you a more favourable result nor would assessment under the National Occupation Classification System. . . . |
| . . . For your information, these are the number of units of assessment awarded to you under this occupation: |
| AGE (38) 10 |
| OCCUPATIONAL FACTOR 01 |
| ETF/S.V.P. 15 |
| EXPERIENCE 06 |
| A.R.E. 00 |
| DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR 08 |
| EDUCATION 13 |
| ENGLISH 00 |
| FRENCH 00 |
| BONUS 05 |
| SUITABILITY 06 |
| TOTAL 64 |
[3] The applicant submits that the visa officer misapprehended evidence regarding his occupation and experience and the definition of diesel mechanic. He submits that the visa officer did not fulfil her duty to act fairly by failing to give him an opportunity to provide more information regarding the offer of employment to service marine engines and that he had a legitimate expectation that his application for permanent residence in Canada would be successful if he provided evidence of experience as a diesel mechanic.
[4] Upon reviewing the evidence, I find that the facts do not support any of the applicant's submissions. More specifically, with respect to the legitimate expectation argument, I note that the doctrine applies to procedural rights only and does not guarantee substantive ones. I do not see anywhere on the record an express or implied promise that the applicant would be admitted to Canada upon showing proof of his experience as a diesel mechanic.
[5] In Chiu Chee To v. M.E.I. (May 22, 1996), A-172-93, the Federal Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for discretionary decisions of visa officers with respect to immigrant applications is the same as that enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 1, where Mr. Justice McIntyre stated at pages 7 to 8:
| . . . It is, as well, a clearly-established rule that the courts should not interfere with the exercise of a discretion by a statutory authority merely because the court might have exercised the discretion in a different manner had it been charged with that responsibility. Where the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, the courts should not interfere. . . . |
[6] I am not convinced, therefore, that the visa officer committed a reviewable error.
[7] Consequently, the application is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 8, 1999