Date: 19980828
Docket: IMM-3035-97
BETWEEN:
SYED RIZWAN HAIDER RIZVI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY, J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in New York dated June 2, 1997, rejecting the applicant"s application for permanent residence. Counsel for the parties were heard in Toronto on June 26, 1998 and at the conclusion of the hearing I dismissed the application, for reasons then given orally. Subsequently, an Order issued dismissing the Application of the Applicant. These reasons confirm those orally rendered on June 26.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who has resided in the United States since 1994 on a student visa. According to the applicant, he completed his university education in 1992 in Lahore, Pakistan, where he received a Bachelor's degree and in 1993, he began a Master's programme, completing his MBA in 1994, again in Lahore. Between 1992 and 1994, he avers that he was employed with Adline Ltd. in Lahore as a "sales promotion administrator". Between January 1996 and December 1996, he worked at Main Street Men's Club in Hicksville, New York, again as a "sales promotion administrator". Subsequently, he continued working as a "sales promotion administrator" from January 1997 to May 1997 for International Systems Corporation in Miami.
[3] In January 1996, the applicant applied to the Canadian Consulate General in New York for permanent residence in Canada. The applicant was interviewed on April 1, 1997. According to the visa officer, during the interview, the applicant indicated that despite not having so indicated on his application form, he did have an aunt in Canada. He refused to disclose her name and address, claiming that he did not have documents to prove his assertion and that he did not want to ask her for help. He was advised that no bonus points could be awarded to him unless he could prove the relationship to the aunt he claimed lived in Canada.
[4] The applicant, during the interview, could not remember the dates he commenced his bachelor"s and his master's degree programs and his application form was left unanswered in these details, even though the applicant had been asked to provide specific dates. Further, he could provide only transcripts and not any diploma or certificate as proof that he had received his Master's degree. As a consequence, the applicant was awarded points for his BA, for which he produced a diploma, but no points for the Master"s degree for which no proof was produced.
[5] The officer also was sceptical of the applicant's work experience. When questioned, the applicant's explanation of his schedule, working hours and job description as a "sales promotion administrator" was vague and unconvincing. As a consequence, no points were awarded for his work experience with Adline Advertising in Pakistan. With regard to his US employment, the officer noted that the reference letter from "Venus Industries, Main street men's club" refers to the applicant as a "sales and marketing administrator", rather than a sales promotion administrator and that the description of his duties varies from those under "sales promotion administrator" in the CCDO. Further, the officer doubted the authenticity of the letter and requested further documentation, barring which he would contact the employer. The applicant replied that the employer had dissolved his operations in New York and had returned to India. Ultimately, the applicant received no points for experience.
[6] The applicant questions the exercise of discretion by the visa officer on several grounds. Thus, it is urged that the officer failed to provide full recognition of the applicant"s education by refusing to accord points for the claimed Master"s degree, that the officer erred in assessing the applicant"s experience for which he was assigned no points at all, and finally, that the officer failed in according fairness by not clearly identifying her concerns about his claimed experience.
[7] For the respondent it was urged that no basis was established upon which the exercise of discretion by the officer should be set aside. Only where it is established that discretion was exercised on a wrong basis, patently unreasonably or clearly by an unfair process, should the Court intervene.
[8] I agree with the respondent that the discretionary exercise of assessing the applicant"s experience is the key to the outcome of this application for judicial review. In reasons orally rendered on June 26, 1998 I dismissed the application, for the following reasons now edited, as follows:
| While a number of issues are raised about the assessment of his application by the Visa Officer, I accept the Respondent's submission that the key issue concerns the officer's assessment of the experience claimed by the Applicant in relation to the job or occupation for which he had made application and which he was prepared to follow were he to be admitted to Canada. That occupation is described as Sales Promotion Administrator, one of the classifications within the Canadian Classification Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO), which was then applicable. |
| The Applicant presented documentary evidence of his experience, being three letters said to be from former employers. The officer ultimately assessed zero points for experience in this case because she concluded that the evidence presented to her from all of these employers did not satisfy her that the Applicant had the experience which he claimed. |
| I look at those letters in turn, in light of the Applicant's statement in his affidavit, that the Officer did not comment about her concerns. In paragraph 22 of his affidavit, he says: |
| "At no time during the interview did the Visa Officer ever indicate why she was not satisfied with the evidence or information that I provided to her." |
| The Officer's affidavit, on the other hand, takes each of the letters from employers in turn and deals with them. And her concerns are identified, and I assume must have been identified at the interview, in light of the description that she gives of the Applicant's dealing with her concerns. Thus, for the applicant's letter from Adline Advertising, a firm in Pakistan, the Officer's concerns were that his described function as a Sales Promotion Administrator, was in a period when he was also said to have been engaged in full-time university studies. The officer notes in her affidavit that she was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation of his schedule, his working hours and his job description, in light of the description provided in the CCDO. When the applicant provided no clarification at the interview, no points for experience were assigned for this employment. |
| The same result came from her assessment of the first of the employers in the United States, with whom he reported to have worked for two years, a firm which was said now to be out of business, the owner having moved subsequently to India. The Officer gave every opportunity, according to her affidavit, for the Applicant to provide additional information about that employment. He did not take that opportunity and the Officer was not satisfied, in part because the job description set out in the letter varied from the job described in the CCDO for the occupation Sales Promotion Administrator, for which he was applying. |
| The second employer in the United States, one with whom he had been employed at that stage for three months, could not be qualified for a rating in terms of experience because he had not then been employed for more than a year, the necessary minimum term for rating experience. She was not satisfied, further, that the explanation of his duties, as he then provided, for that employment met with the duties as outlined in the CCDO. |
| I am not persuaded, on the basis of argument before me or the evidence provided by the Applicant, that the Officer's assessment can be said to be perverse or capricious in light of the evidence before her. Moreover, I am not persuaded, despite the applicant's affidavit, that the visa officer did not convey her concerns about his claimed experience during the course of the interview. In the exercise of her discretion, some clearly outstanding error on her part must be demonstrated and I am not persuaded that is the case here. |
| In the circumstances, I cannot conclude that her assessment was in error or that the Applicant ought to have been awarded any points for experience in the occupation for which he sought to be admitted to Canada. In those circumstances, he was not admissible under the statute, as I understand it. |
| For these reasons, I dismiss the application of the applicant". |
W. Andrew MacKay
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
August 28, 1998