Date: 20000426
Docket: IMM-1916-99
BETWEEN:
ZI CHEN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS, J.
[1] This is a judicial review application of the decision of Susanna Ching, Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong, dated, March 31, 1999, wherein the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.
Facts
[2] The applicant graduated from Beijing Union University in the People"s Republic of China in 1987, with a bachelor of arts degree, English major. She applied for permanent residence in the independent category under the occupation of interpreter, claiming to have worked in that field for seven years.
Decision of the visa officer
[3] The visa officer assessed the applicant in the occupation of Interpreter, NOC 5125.3. However, she was found not to meet the employment requirements under the National Occupation Classification.
[4] The visa officer concluded that the applicant was a member of the class of persons who are inadmissible to Canada as described in paragraph 19(2)d) of the Immigration Act and she therefore refused the application.
The applicant"s arguments
[5] The applicant submits that the visa officer fettered her discretion by refusing to exercise her jurisdiction.
[6] It is submitted that the CAIPS notes and its emphasis on a lack of translation courses demonstrate that the visa officer was not considering whether the applicant"s degree was "a related discipline" to translation but rather whether it was the equivalent to a degree in translation which is a higher standard than required by the NOC.
[7] The applicant further submits that the visa breach a duty of fairness when interpreting "a related discipline".
The respondent"s arguments
[8] The respondent submits that the visa officer did not fetter her discretion by ignoring the possibility that the applicant could have a degree in a related discipline.
[9] The respondent points out to the CAIPS notes to sustain the claim that the visa officer did in fact consider whether an English degree was a related discipline. The visa officer concluded that it was not.
[10] The respondent submits that it would be necessary to look at the substantive course work to determine whether the applicant"s BA degree in English could qualify as a "related discipline" to translation. The visa officer concluded that the applicant"s undergraduate degree in English did not qualify to make the degree in English a "related discipline" to translation.
[11] The respondent submits that the visa officer properly considered the applicant"s course work in determining that the applicant did not meet the NOC requirements to be classified as a translator. No duty of fairness, in what is essentially an administrative assessment has been breached.
Issue
[12] Did the visa officer err in interpreting the employment requirement for interpreters NOC 5215.3?
Analysis
[13] The NOC indicates that Interpreters, NOC 5125.3 need to meet the following employment requirements in order to qualify:
| A bachelor"s degree in translation or a related discipline is required, and specialisation in interpretation, translation and terminology at the graduate level is usually required |
[14] The CAIPS notes reveal:
| Original Grad cert/BA in English with notarized transcripts seen. Only 2 translation courses taken (English to Chinese translation and Chinese to English translation.[...] |
| Intended occupation recorded on IMM8 was interpreter. However, PI does not meet the requirements as a bachelor"s degree in translation or a related discipline is required. PI only has bachelor"s degree in English with only 2 translation course. Not satisfied that she is qualified to undertake the occupation of an interpreter in CDA. |
| [...] |
| PI does not meet employment requirements as she does not have a bachelor"s degree in translation or a related discipline as I am not satisfied that a bachelor"s degree in English is a related discipline. |
[15] After reviewing the CAIPS notes, I am convinced that the visa officer did not fetter her discretion.
[16] A translation degree holds many courses of translation ranging from the basic to the advanced level, as well as specialized translation, in sign language or in the field of business, politics, or law. Also, there are different methods of interpretation: simultaneous, consecutive, whispering. A translation degree requires knowledge of different languages as well.
[17] The Webster dictionary defines "related" as "connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation"; discipline is defined as "a field of study".
[18] In determining if the English degree is connected by reason of an established or discoverable relationship to a translation degree, the visa officer must necessarily determine if the courses taken are somehow connected to the occupation of interpreter or translator. This is not to say that the related discipline must be the equivalent of the translation field, or that the courses taken must all be the same. There must be however, a nexus between the translation degree and the applicant"s degree sufficient enough to satisfy the employment requirements in Canada.
[19] In the present case, since the applicant did not have a bachelor"s degree in translation, the visa officer turned her mind to determine whether the applicant"s English degree is a related discipline. In order to do so, she examined the courses taken. The visa officer noted that only two courses taken were related to the field of translation and in her opinion, they were not sufficient to make the English degree a related discipline to translation.
[20] In my view, the visa officer correctly interpreted the employment requirement.
[21] As to the applicant"s second argument, that a duty of fairness has been breached, I don"t quite see how the visa officer breached any duty of fairness.
[22] The visa officer wrote:
| Gave opportunity to PI to ask questions. PI kept on saying that her BA degree should be accepted as she had studied translation and linguistics. I did not agree with her as there were only 2 translation courses and no linguistics courses taken. |
[23] In my opinion, the visa officer has not made a reveiwable error. For these reasons, this judicial review application should be dismissed.
(Sgd.) "Pierre Blais"
Judge
April 26, 2000
Vancouver, British Columbia
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
IMMIGRATION DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
| COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1916-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Zi Chen |
v.
MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: April 26, 2000
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF BLAIS, J.
| DATED: April 26, 2000 |
APPEARANCES:
| Mr. Dennis Tanack For the Applicant |
| Ms. Helen Park For the Respondent |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Dennis Tanack
Barrister and Solicitor
| Vancouver, BC For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney
| General of Canada For the Respondent |