Date: 20000712
Docket: IMM-6090-99
BETWEEN:
YIN GUO ZHONG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
McKEOWN J.
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the immigration officer dated November 1, 1999, wherein the Applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.
[2] The issues are: (1) whether the immigration officer"s findings that the Applicant has experience as a Cook under the NOC 6242 and that the Applicant has no experience as Chef-Cook general CCDO 6121-111 and Cook, foreign foods CCDO 6121-126 are reasonable and (2) whether the immigration officer provided reasons for the number of units awarded under the personal suitability factor.
[3] The immigration officer in the CAIPS notes set out the reasons for the award of 6 units under personal suitability:
| "no formal labour markets strategy or contingency but states that he foresees no problems in finding work or establishing in Canada PS 6 accurately reflects PI"s likelihood of successful settlement in Canada" |
[4] The immigration officer has covered relevant factors which can be considered under personal suitability. In light of the job offer that the Applicant received there is no need for the Applicant to have a formal labour market strategy. The Applicant had no contingency plan. It is not a reviewable error in all the circumstances where the immigration officer awards 6 points for personal suitability and finds there is a likelihood of successful settlement. When an immigration officer considers relevant factors, this is sufficient to constitute adequate reasons to determine personal suitability.
[5] The immigration officer extensively reviewed in the CAIPS notes why the Applicant was not a Chef-Cook general nor a Cook foreign foods and was better described by the CCDO definition of Cook.Second 6121-131. However, the immigration officer has experience in grading Cooks and there is no reason to question the immigration officer"s findings that the grade 3 certificate was the most basic level of cooking certificates. In any event, the grade 3 certificate does not affect the definition of Cook second class in CCDO.
[6] An Applicant"s position in the hierarchy in the kitchen is crucial to proper categorization of an applicant under the CCDO. In reviewing the definition of CCDO 6121-111 and 6121-126 and 6121-131, it is clear that the three types of Cooks perform similar duties and the differences relate to whether the Cook is under the supervision of another cook or supervising other cooks and others. It was open on the evidence before the immigration officer for him to find that the Applicant was better described by the CCDO"s definition of Cook Second 6121-131.
[7] The immigration officer went on to find that the Applicant did have experience as a Cook 6242.0 under the NOC. The Applicant submits since the immigration officer found that the Applicant had experience as a Cook under NOC then, the Applicant must also be a Cook under Chef-Cook general or Cook foreign services. However, this ignores that a Cook under NOC 6242 covers a variety of Cooks:
| Examples of titles classified in this unit group |
| Apprentice Cook Institutional Cook |
| Cook Journeyman/woman Cook |
| Dietary Cook Licensed Cook |
| First Cook Second Cook |
| Grill Cook Short Order Cook |
| Hospital Cook |
[8] It may be seen from the above that a Cook includes Cooks, First Cook and Second Cook. Since a second Cook was included and the Applicant had experience as a Second Cook, points had to be given for experience under the NOC, whereas since the Applicant had not met the requirements of the two categories in the CCDO, it was unnecessary to give any points for experience under the CCDO categories, Chef-Cook general and Cook, foreign foods.
[9] The Applicant submitted that since 10 units had been awarded to the Applicant for occupational demand he must have been assessed as a Cook since the NOC"s categories were broken down under the general occupation list. However, a review of the general occupation list show that Second Cooks also received 10 units.
[10] Accordingly, it was open to the immigration officer on the evidence before him to grant four units for experience under the NOC because the NOC includes Cooks and Second Cooks in the same category. The immigration officer"s assessment is not internally contradictory.
[11] The NOC"s conversion chart is not an equivalency chart. An immigration officer must still look at the definitions under the CCDO and the NOC to determine if the two positions are equivalent. In the CAIPS notes the immigration officer states that the:
| PI has experience as a Cook (6242.0) |
and the Applicant submitted this must mean that the immigration officer considered the Applicant as a Cook.
[12] However, as stated earlier Cook under the NOC includes Second Cook and there was no need for the immigration officer to break down the type of Cook. The immigration officer"s findings that the Applicant has experience as a Cook under NOC 6242 and his findings that the Applicant has no experience as Chef-Cook general CCDO 6121-111and Cook Foreign Foods CCDO 6121-126 are reasonable and are not inconsistent.
[13] The application for judicial review is dismissed. The question posed by the Applicant for certification is refused. It is based on the facts of this case and is not a question of general importance.
"W. P. McKeown"
____________________________
| JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
July 12, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-6090-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: YIN GUO ZHONG |
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY , JUNE 21, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: McKEOWN J. |
| DATED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2000 |
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Matthey Moyal |
| For the Applicant |
| Mr. Kevin Lunney |
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MOYAL AND MOYAL |
Barristers & Solicitors
8 Finch Avenue West
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6L1
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000712
Docket: IMM-6090-99
BETWEEN:
| YIN GUO ZHONG |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |