Date: 19990716
Docket: IMM-3708-98
BETWEEN:
MAN SHING WONG
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY J.
[1] The applicant, 36, is from Hong Kong, where he was born. Since 1985, he has also lived in Ireland, South Africa and New Zealand under various immigration permits issued by those countries. In 1995, he sought permanent residence in Canada as an independent immigrant.
[2] The visa officer determined that the applicant had insufficient education and work experience to be assessed in his attended occupation as Head Chef (CCDO 6121-112). The applicant was therefore assessed as Cook, Foreign Foods (CCDO 6121-126)1 and received sixty-five points, five short of the required minimum. Accordingly, his application for permanent residence was denied.
[3] This application for judicial review of the visa officer"s decision must also be dismissed. The record discloses no credible information that the applicant has ever performed the principal functions of Head Chef (CCDO 6121-112):
| Plans, menus, estimates costs, supervises and co-ordinates activities of chefs, cooks and other workers engaged in preparing and cooking food, and prepares and cooks food in hotels, restaurants, hospitals, clubs and similar establishments. |
| ... |
| Plans menus and estimates food and labour costs. Advises chefs or cooks on size of portions or servings and demonstrates cooking procedures. Requisitions food, wine and kitchen supplies and equipment. Discusses special dinner plans with customer. Interviews, hires and dismisses workers. Directs and supervises the activities of cooks and other workers and demonstrates cooking techniques. Discusses management or supervisory issues with managers, dieticians or other staff members. |
Bald assertions in an employer"s letter of reference and in a foreign government"s employment authorization document that the applicant worked as a head chef, with no further details, do not establish that he was responsible for the activities required in the CCDO. I find no reviewable error in the visa officer"s conclusion that the applicant failed to establish his qualifications as a Head Chef under the CCDO.
[4] Similarly, the visa officer"s alleged failure to consider, according to the CCDO guideline, the applicant"s years of experience in less responsible chef-related functions is irrelevant. The applicant was awarded the maximum number of units under special vocation preparation and under experience for the occupation of Cook, Foreign Foods. He could receive no greater number of units under these factors because he did not meet the CCDO requirements of Head Chef.
[5] On cross-examination, the visa officer acknowledged that she did not confront the applicant with two apparent inconsistencies in the information submitted in support of his application. First, the letter of recommendation from the applicant"s Irish employer between 1985-89 described him as a Junior Chef for three years and a Head Chef for one year. During the interview, according to the visa officer, the application referred to himself as a kitchen helper and never stated that he was a junior chef. Second, the applicant"s Irish employment authorization document was for Head Chef in 1986-87 and not in 1988 as suggested by the letter of reference.
[6] These are not the kind the kind of concerns that the visa officer was required to raise with the applicant.1 No extrinsic evidence was relied upon by the visa officer. The facts she described as inconsistencies emanated from the applicant"s information and, in any event, were peripheral to the crucial issue. These facts did not affect the applicant"s failure to establish that he had the basic qualifications to meet the definition of Head Chef in the CCDO.
[7] During the hearing, I rejected the applicant"s argument that the visa officer improperly ignored the letters from an accountant and a real estate agent, both from South Africa, who purported to confirm the applicant"s credentials has head chef. These letters merely recited, virtually verbatim and with only minor variations, the CCDO definition of head chef. It was not credible for the applicant"s consultant to submit these letters in support of the application for permanent residence. It would have been wise for the visa officer to ignore these letters, in the circumstances of this case, if that is what she did.
[8] Finally, the applicant"s counsel properly withdrew his argument concerning the visa officer"s qualifications.
[9] This application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
"Allan Lutfy"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
July 16, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3708-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MAN SHING WONG |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LUTFY J.
DATED: FRIDAY, JULY 16, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Michael Beggs
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
Barristers & Solicitors
405-255 Duncan Mill Rd.
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Applicant
| Morris Rosenberg |
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990716
Docket: IMM-3708-98
Between:
| MAN SHING WONG |
Applicant
| - and - |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1. The CCDO occupation under number 6121-126 is described as Cook, Specialty Foods, not Cook, Foreign Foods, in Exhibit B of the affidavit filed by the visa officer. Neither party raised this minor discrepancy in their submissions.
2. Parmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 139 F.T.R. 203 at paragraphs 33 and 36. The "inconsistencies" in the present case are of a substantially different kind than the education contradictions in the visa officer"s determination concerning a dependent son in Dhesi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 59 (T.D.).