Federal Court Decisions

IMM-1736-96

BETWEEN:

TOMOKO KODA,

Applicant,

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

Respondent.

REASONS FOR ORDER

NOËL J.:

     This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an Immigration Officer dated April 19, 1996 wherein the Applicant was refused landing.

I      THE FACTS

     The Applicant is a citizen of Japan. On August 30, 1995, she made an application for permanent residence at the Canadian Embassy in Tokyo. On September 15, 1995, the Applicant's application was paper screened in the Independent Category. She was assessed based on the requirements for the occupation of Executive Secretary.¹ After reviewing the information in her application, the Immigration Officer determined that an interview was required.

     The interview was held on January 23, 1996. Because the Applicant had applied for permanent residence in the Independent Category, the focus of the interview was on her employment history and qualifications, her job duties and responsibilities relating to her intended occupation as an Executive Secretary. Following the interview, the Immigration Officer awarded her 2 supplementary units under the heading "Experience" for a total of 4 units, and 5 units under the heading "Personal suitability" for a total of 5 units. When these were added to the units which had already been awarded to the Applicant, they came one unit short of the required 70.

II      ISSUE

     Did the Designated Immigration Officer commit an error of fact amounting to an error of law in analyzing the Applicant's application for landing?

III      ANALYSIS

A)      Experience

     The Applicant submits that the Immigration Officer erred in fact and in law in awarding her only 4 units of assessment for Schedule 1 of the Immigration Regulations, Factor 3, Experience, which reads:

Units of assessment shall be awarded for experience in the occupation in which the Applicant is assessed under Item 4 [...] as follows :

(c)      when the Specific Vocational Preparation time needed is more than one year up to and including four years, two units for each year of experience not exceeding three years.

In his affidavit, the Immigration Officer states :

I was seeking to determine the type of experience she had in order to assess whether it was "Executive Secretary" experience. In fact, I assessed her experience with both I.B.M. and W.I.L.L. Eigokai Corporation as being Executive Secretary experience and awarded the Applicant two points for each of these positions in accordance with the period of full-time employment in each position. Accordingly, I awarded the Applicant a total of 4 points for experience.2

     The Applicant submits the Designated Immigration Officer erred in law in interpreting the experience criteria as meaning full-time experience. According to the Applicant, the requirement is merely set out in years, and all work experience must therefore be considered, whether it involved full-time or part-time employment. It follows that the Immigration Officer erred in failing to consider the Applicant's total work experience as he ignored the Applicant's period of part-time work at W.I.L.L. Eigokai Corporation. Further, the Immigration Officer erred in not taking into account the Applicant's prior work experience at Nippon Life Insurance Co.

     The Respondent submits that a "year of experience" is full-time employment experience or the equivalent. According to the Respondent, it was open to the Immigration Officer to conclude that the Applicant's 11 months of part-time experience with W.I.L.L. Eigokai Corporation did not amount to a "year of experience". The Immigration Officer's conclusion simply suggests that he did not consider that the Applicant's part-time work experience was equivalent to full-time work experience; it does not mean that he did not consider the totality of the Applicant's work experience.

     With respect to the Applicant's employment at Nippon Life Insurance Co., the Respondent submits that the Immigration Officer did not ignore this experience, but considered that the duties of "creating new contract documents as well as checking and assessing them... in charge of creating documents, managing schedules and answering telephone calls" were those of a Secretary, and not of an Executive Secretary. Consequently, this experience could not count towards the attribution of assessment units in the evaluation of the Applicant as an Executive Secretary.

     In Rajpaul v. Canada,³ this court upheld an Immigration Officer's decision not to grant units of assessment for part-time employment. There is logic to this as part-time work over a year cannot be equated with annual full-time work. I agree with the Immigration Officer's position that the analysis must be made by reference to a full year's experience or the equivalent in order to fulfil the appropriate requirements for a unit of assessment.

     As for the employment at Nippon Life Insurance Co., I agree that it was open to the Immigration Officer to find that this work experience did not qualify for supplementary units of assessment for the position of Executive Secretary. I therefore find no reviewable error in the Immigration Officer's evaluation of the Applicant's experience.

B)      Personal Suitability

     The Applicant submits that the Immigration Officer "double-counted" units of assessment for language and job experience under the heading "Personal Suitability" and in so doing, committed an error of law. In support of her argument, she relies on the following interview notes:

HAVE REVIEWED FILE AND AWARDED SUBJ 5 UNITS OF ASSESSMENT FOR PERSONAL SUITABILITY...ALTHOUGH SUBJ IS FLUENT IN ENGLISH ... HAS LIMITED FINANCES AND JOB EXPERIENCE AS A SECRETARY... SINCE GRADUATING FROM SECRETARIAL SCHOOL ... SEND ND1 REFUSAL INCLUDE PARA (E)

     The Respondent submits that these interview notes are not to be read as a single statement, but rather are a string of points noted in the entirety of the assessment of the application. According to the Respondent, he did not double count the language criteria or the lack of job experience, but merely evaluated the appropriate criteria for personal suitability, that is "The Applicant's level of motivation, adaptability, initiative and resourcefulness and other similar qualities". That submission is entirely consistent with the decision of this Court in Vasilev v. Canada,⁴ and is determinative of the issue.

C)      Threshold test

     The Applicant submits that the designated Immigration Officer imposed an unwarranted threshold test by requiring her to possess an unstated amount of finances. In support of her statement, the Applicant argues that the Immigration Officer erred in taking note of the Applicant's "limited finances", suggesting that the amount held by the Applicant was not sufficient to support her in Canada. Further, the Applicant submits that the Immigration Officer failed to consider her real worth as he ignored her non-monetary assets which had a value of $9,375.⁵ Finally, the Applicant argues that in assessing the Applicant's personal suitability, the Immigration Officer erred in failing to consider the offer of employment made to her by a Canadian company.

     The Respondent submits firstly that in reaching his decision he considered the totality of the Applicant's assets and that the note relating to the Applicant's limited finances was merely intended as a general reflection of the Applicant's financial situation. The Respondent also submits that the Immigration Officer considered the Applicant's job offer, as he noted that it had not been validated.

     I find no reviewable error in the Immigration Officer's findings in regard to the Applicant's financial situation. It has not been established that the Officer imposed a threshold test as the Applicant contends. Furthermore, it has not been established that the Immigration Officer failed to consider the offer of employment.

     For these reasons, the application is dismissed.

     Marc Noël

     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

April 4, 1997

__________________

     ¹      Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations No. 4111-111.

     ²      Affidavit of Ronald McKay sworn June 19, 1996 at para. 8.

     ³      Unreported, (March 22, 1996), File no. IMM-3039-94, per Jerome A.C.J.

     ⁴      (1996) 110 F.C.R.

     ⁵      Applicant's Memorandum of Argument, para. 17 at p. 23 of the Applicant's Record.