Date: 19990421
Docket: IMM-3824-98
BETWEEN:
BHUPINDER SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of and for an order quashing the decision of a designated immigration officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Seattle, Washington who refused the application by Mr. Singh for immigration to Canada as a permanent resident. That application was made in the independent immigrant category and in the application Mr. Singh had indicated his intended occupation in Canada as "purchasing agent and officer", or "personnel and recruitment officer & manger", NOC numbers 1225 and 1223. The application, signed on April 28, 1997, indicated that the applicant's present occupation was the same as that which he intended to follow in Canada.
[2] The applicant was interviewed by the visa officer in Seattle and at the conclusion of the interview the officer indicated that his application was refused. The bases for that refusal are set out in the officer's decision letter dated June 29, 1998. After referring to the various factors taken into consideration the letter notes that he was assessed based on the requirements for the occupation of cook, foreign foods - NOC 6242, and was awarded 68 units of assessment, less than the 70 required for admission to Canada. The letter notes that he was also assessed as restaurant manager - NOC 0631, for which he was awarded fewer points. Since there was no occupational demand for the latter occupation in Canada he could not be granted an immigrant visa under the Regulations, regardless of the points awarded. Finally, the letter noted that his intended occupations set out in his application were purchasing agent - NOC 1225, or personnel and recruitment officer - NOC 1223, but for these occupations the officer had not awarded any units of assessment for the factor "experience in the occupation for which he was qualified and prepared to follow in Canada." It was the officer's conclusion that he had "no labour market experience" in those occupations and thus she awarded no units for this factor. Without any units for experience he was not admissible for those intended occupations in Canada.
[3] The applicant urges that the visa officer failed to assess him in respect of his intended occupations, as purchasing agent and officer, and as personnel and recruitment officer. I am not persuaded this is the case. The officer sets out by affidavit that she assessed the applicant in the following occupations: 1 - purchasing agent and officer - NOC 1225; 2 - personnel and recruitment officer - NOC 1223; 3 - cook, foreign foods - NOC 6242; and 4 - restaurant manager - NOC 0631. The fact of those assessments is borne out by the officer's CAIPs notes made at the time of the applicant's interview and the letter does note that in his intended occupations he was assessed as having no units for experience. Thus, I am not persuaded that the applicant was not assessed in relation to his intended occupations.
[4] It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the visa officer did not fairly assess letters from his employers about his work experience. He claimed to have four years and two months experience as a purchasing agent and officer and as personnel and recruitment officer, and as manager, for a restaurant of which he had been co-proprietor. The employer's letter, said to have been written by his former partner, whom the applicant said was unreliable, indicated that the applicant had been the manager and a partner of the restaurant business for a year less than the time claimed by the applicant. Moreover, that letter and the letter from a second employer, which indicated that he had worked as a restaurant manager, with some detail of his responsibilities, is said by the visa officer to be virtually the same, as the letter signed by his former partner, in the same type script and with similar errors in the text. The visa officer discounted these letters and gave them "little weight". A third letter, said to be from a third employer, concerned his employment as a purchaser at a third restaurant but at his interview the applicant described his position as that of restaurant manager while his income tax return for the period indicated he had been employed as a cook. In view of the conflicting information about his employment there the visa officer did not accept the letter as credible.
[5] The applicant urges that the visa officer ought to have distinguished particular duties, described in the three letters from employers, as part of his responsibilities while serving as a manager or as cook, but since the visa officer found the letters from employers not to be credible or of little weight, distinguishing aspects of responsibilities described in those letters would not have assisted the applicant. Concern about the assessment of his experience in purchasing or personnel and recruitment is essentially concern about the weight assigned to the evidence before her by the visa officer. That is a matter within her discretion and there is no basis on which the Court can intervene unless that discretion is shown to have been exercised in bad faith or for improper purpose or without regard to the evidence. I am not persuaded that the visa officer's assessment can be so described. She did review his letters from employers at the interview and she provided opportunity for him to provide any evidence of experience in relation to his intended occupations, and she assessed his repsonses to questions asked of him.
[6] The applicant urges that the visa officer did not fairly consider evidence of offers of employment in Canada which he presented. One was from an auto sales company by which the applicant indicated he had been offered employment as an auto salesman. Since he had no previous experience in that occupation he would not have had any units of experience and thus would not be admissible to Canada for that occupation. The other, from a restaurant or food service operation, indicates that he would be hired as a purchasing manager, an occupation for which the visa officer had concluded he had no units of experience. The applicant indicated that the offer was for him to run the restaurant concerned, but since there was no occupational demand for restaurant managers in Canada at the time he would not have been admissible for that occupation.
[7] Finally, the officer is said by the applicant to have been hostile and aggressive in the course of the interview, a characterization that the visa officer categorically denies in her affidavit. She does not deny asking questions on a number of occasions when his oral responses did not correspond to information provided in his written application, but the visa officer affirms that she pursued these questions in a professional manner. I note that she did, in fact, assess the applicant for occupations not specified as intended occupations, that is, as cook, foreign foods and as restaurant manager. She did so on the basis of her assessment of his experience in employment. It was in relation to the former occupation as cook foreign foods that he was in fact assessed a total of 68 units. As noted, the assessment as restaurant manager, including no units of assessment for occupational demand, precluded granting approval of his application for immigration to Canada.
Conclusion
[8] I am not persuaded that the visa officer failed to assess documentary and verbal evidence provided by the applicant in support of his intended occupation, in relation to other occupations that the visa officer felt were included in the scope of his experience, or in the assessment of job opportunities offered to him in Canada. In the circumstances I find no basis for the Court to intervene in relation to the decision made on the applicant's application.
[9] For these reasons an order will issue dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review.
"W. Andrew MacKay"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
April 21, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3824-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: BHUPINDER SINGH |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: VANCOUVER, BC
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MacKAY J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Brian Tsuji
For the Applicant
Ms. Lorie Jane Turner
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Brian Edward Tadayoshi Tsuji
Barrister & Solicitor
1488 - 777 Hornby
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 1S4
For the Applicant
| Morris Rosenberg |
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990421
Docket: IMM-3824-98
Between:
| BHUPINDER SINGH |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER