Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990408


Docket: IMM-928-98

BETWEEN:

     TARIQ MEHMOOD

Applicant


- and -


THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent


REASONS FOR ORDER

McKEOWN J.

[1]      The applicant, a national of Pakistan, seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer in Buffalo, New York, dated January 22, 1998 refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada under the skilled workers' program

[2]      The issue is whether the visa officer erred in stating that the applicant did not possess the requisite Specific Vocational Preparation (SVP) for the occupation of "Chef Rotisseur".

[3]      The visa officer assessed the applicant as follows:

             In order to assess your qualifications in your intended occupation I asked you whether you had any training as a Chef Rotisseur. You responded that you completed one year on-the-job training with the Faisal Hotel and Restaurant in Pakistan. According to the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations, the specific vocational preparation is more than four years up to and including ten years of training is required in order to qualify as a Chef Rotisseur in Canada. I note that apart from this one year on-the-job training you do not possess the minimum specific vocational preparation for this occupation. You responded that your length of experience should be taken into consideration. I then advised you that you had not disabused me of my concern and I therefore determined that you do not qualify for selection as a Chef Rotisseur.             

[4]      The applicant submitted that his experience as a Chef Rotisseur for eleven years should have been taken into account under the SVP. However, one receives points for experience which is a separate category from SVP. Furthermore, one cannot act as a professional, such as a Chef Rotisseur, for a number of years if one does not have the necessary qualifications to do the job. The CCDO guide Schedule 1 requires more than four years up to and including ten years of training. The applicant only had one year on-the-job training by his own admission. The visa officer did not err, she did not fail to carry out the assessment that was required of her, nor did she fail in her duty of fairness to the applicant.

[5]      The application for judicial review is dismissed.

"W.P. McKeown"

Judge

TORONTO, ONTARIO

April 8, 1999

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-928-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      TARIQ MEHMOOD

                                        

                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:                  THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              McKEOWN J.

DATED:                          THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1999

APPEARANCES:                      Mr. Stan Ehrlich

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Godwin Friday

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Goodman Philllips & Vineberg

                             Barristers & Solicitors

                             Box 24, 2400-250 Yonge St.,

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M5B 2M6

                            

                                 For the Applicant

                             Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

            

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19990408

                        

         Docket: IMM-928-98

                             Between:

                             TARIQ MEHMOOD

                            

     Applicant

                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                                                                 REASONS FOR ORDER

                            

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.