Date: 20000524
Docket: IMM-6679-98
BETWEEN:
MS. XIUHUA WEI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
DENAULT, J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered on November 26, 1998 by a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong, China, which refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The applicant submitted an application for permanent residence in Canada in the Independent category as a welding engineer. Having conducted a selection interview with the applicant, the visa officer concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements for immigration as a welding engineer (CCDO 2159-142) or as a metallurgical and materials engineer (NOC 2142.0). The applicant was then assessed as a welding technician (CCDO 8335-334) or geological and mineral technologist (NOC 2212.1), but still failed to qualify mainly on the grounds of her lack of experience.
[3] The applicant submits that the visa officer did not properly evaluate her work experience as a welding engineer1, and that this lead to the erroneous conclusion that she was a welding technician. The applicant further submits that the visa officer did not give her the opportunity to provide information regarding her work experience. In addition, the applicant claims that the visa officer misinterpreted her silence as an unwillingness to answer questions relating to her experience, leading the officer to conclude that she did not answer for lack of experience and lack of knowledge as a welding engineer.
[4] Having reviewed the tribunal record, focussing on the CAIPS notes and the letters of reference of the applicant's former employers, I am not persuaded that the visa officer erred or that her decision is unreasonable.
[5] It appears from the CAIPS notes, taken contemporaneously with the interview, that the applicant was given ample opportunity to explain and describe her work experience. But still, she could not provide any satisfactory details of her daily activities and duties as a welding engineer for each employer she worked with, even though the applicant seemed to meet the training and qualification requirements since she holds a bachelor's degree in engineering. In these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the visa officer to conclude that the applicant did not perform the duties of a welding engineer as described in the CCDO or the NOC, or that she lacked the required experience factor.
[6] As the notes taken by the visa officer reveal, the applicant's difficulty in providing details about her work experience may not have been due to a lack of proficiency in the field of welding engineering but to a lack of knowledge of the English language. Yet, when she filled her application for permanent residence, the applicant assessed herself as fluent in speaking, reading and writing English. However, during the interview, the visa officer had to downgrade the applicant's ability to communicate in English. She wrote the following in the CAIPS notes:
| Although PI [person interviewed] managed to finish the interview in English, her replies were frequently incoherent and incomprehensible. In a number of occasions she simply stared at me without responding, indicating she could not comprehend my questions. I had to switch to Mandarin to clarify my questions or seek clarifications from her. With all due generosity, I allowed 'well' for PI's speaking ability, mainly for her effort. Reading and writing tests administered, sample of her writing on file. I allowed 'well' for writing, 'with difficulty' in reading. |
As the record shows, the applicant may not have been able to demonstrate that she had fulfilled the responsibilities of the elected occupational classification due to her difficulty to communicate in English. But if that was the case, she had the onus of requiring the services of an interpreter or at least explaining to the visa officer her need for an interpreter. This was not done.
[7] In these circumstances, the Court will not intervene to set aside the decision of the visa officer, dated November 26, 1998, which rejected the applicant's application for permanent residence. The application to set aside that decision is therefore dismissed.
[8] I agree with counsel for both parties that this is not a matter for certification of a serious issue of general importance.
______________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
May 24, 2000
__________________1 The applicant submitted three letters of reference by former employers: the JiL in Province Light Products Imports and Export Corporation letter, where she has been working since April 1995; the Chang Chun City Welding Equipment Factory, where she worked from June 1984 to March 1995; and the Siping Boiler Plant letter, where she worked from August 1982 to May 1984.