Date: 20000531
Docket: IMM-4765-99
Ottawa, Ontario, this 31st day of May, 2000
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE E. HENEGHAN
BETWEEN:
SHAHIDUNISSA SHAHEEN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated July 8, 1999. In his decision, Victor Lum (the "visa officer") refused the application of Shahidunissa Shaheen (the "Applicant") for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The Applicant applied as an independent immigrant in the intended occupation of "executive secretary". The Applicant received the following units of assessment in her intended occupation:
| Age 10 |
| Occupational Demand 05 |
| S.V.P. 15 |
| Experience 00 |
| Demographic Factor 08 |
| Education 16 |
| English 09 |
| French 00 |
| Kinship Bonus 00 |
| Personal Suitability 05 |
| TOTAL 68 |
[3] In his refusal letter, the visa officer stressed that the Applicant was awarded zero points for experience. The visa officer indicated that pursuant to section 11(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, the issuance of an immigrant visa was precluded where an applicant had received zero points for experience.
[4] The issue can be briefly stated as the following: Did the visa officer err in determining that the Applicant did not have any experience as an "executive secretary"?
[5] The Applicant argues that the visa officer erred in finding that she did not have any experience in her intended occupation because she failed to perform all the duties set out in both the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations ("CCDO") and the National Occupational Classification ("NOC"). The Applicant also submits that the visa officer independently imported duties into the CCDO definition of executive secretary.
[6] Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 only requires that an "applicant [perform] a substantial number of the main duties as set out in the National Occupational Classification, including the essential ones." The Applicant argues that there is no requirement for her to be "fluent in typing" or well versed in the latest software.
[7] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "Respondent") submits that Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 164 F.T.R. 152 (F.C.T.D.), a decision by Justice Reed, is a complete answer to the arguments submitted by the Applicant. I agree with the Respondent.
[8] In Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Justice Reed made the following comments in relation to the pre-requisites for an executive secretary:
| I agree with Mr. Rosenblatt that the visa officer treated the requirements of typing skill and shorthand (or some other method of taking verbatim transcripts of discussions that occur at meetings) as pre-requisites for employment in Canada as an executive secretary. I do not think this offends the statements in Muntean v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (1995), 31 Imm. L.R. (2d) 18 (F.C.T.D.) at 22. In that decision, Mr. Justice Cullen stated that job descriptions in the CCDO should be broadly construed and that not every duty set out therein need be performed: |
| ...__job descriptions in the CCDO should be broadly considered and ... an applicant need not perform all of the tasks in the description to qualify in a particular occupational category. If a visa officer mechanically adhered to the CCDO descriptions and demanded that an applicant has performed each described job duty, it could be said that the visa officer would be fettering his or her discretion. |
| The fact that not all duties in a CCDO description need be performed does not mean that the ability to perform some are not essential to an occupation. The chapter of the CCDO (4111), in which Executive Secretary is found as a sub-category, is entitled "Secretaries and Stenographers"._ The "Work Performed" by those filling the occupations found in that chapter is described in the opening paragraph of the chapter. It described what follows as "occupations concerned with taking dictation by shorthand, steno-type machine or dictaphone, transcribing data by typewriter, and performing general office duties." The visa officer's decision, that the applicant lacked "the most basic skills germane to the occupation" of executive secretary because she does not type (she scored 18 w.p.m. on the typing test she was given) and she does not take shorthand of have steno skills, is not a fettering of his discretion or a misevaluation of the evidence. The CCDO supports the conclusion these are basic skills necessary to fulfil the position of a secretary in Canada. The visa officer was not merely imposing his own personal views on the evaluation. |
| ... |
| I could not conclude, even if the second certificate was lost from the official record, that this is an error that would justify setting aside the visa officer's decision. The second certificate does not relate to or fill, in any way, the lacunae that exist in the applicant's training and experience with respect to the basic skills required for employment as an Executive Secretary.1 |
[9] It appears from the CAIPS notes that the Applicant had used Microsoft Word in her most recent job but really has little in the way of computer skills. The CAIPS notes also indicate that the Applicant cannot type and does not know shorthand. In light of the Wu, supra, decision mentioned above, as well as the evidence that the Applicant lacks the basic skills necessary to fulfil the position of executive secretary in Canada, I cannot conclude that the visa officer committed a reviewable error in awarding the Applicant zero units of assessment for experience.
[10] Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this judicial review must be dismissed.
[11] Counsel for the parties have seven days following their receipt of these reasons to request that a question be certified.
ORDER
[12] IT IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review be dismissed.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 31, 2000
__________________