19980828
Docket: IMM-3108-97
B E T W E E N:
ASIF IQBAL WARRAICH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.:
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of, and an order setting aside the decision dated April 25, 1997, of a visa officer of the Canadian Embassy in Buffalo, New York, rejecting the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] Counsel for the parties were heard in Toronto on June 25, 1998 and at conclusion of the hearing I orally dismissed the application for reasons then stated, which for the record, and in support of the written order subsequently issued, I now confirm.
[3] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who has resided in the United States since 1991. He claims to have completed secondary school in 1982 and a college diploma program in 1985, both in Pakistan. From 1986 to 1991 he was employed as a farm equipment repairer by Warraich Farm in Pakistan. From 1991 to 1994 he was a chef at Best Value Deli in Flushing,New York, from 1994 to 1995 he worked as a chef at Mazedar Restaurant, and from 1996 to the date of his application for judicial review, he was a chef at Al Fatir, a restaurant. Both the latter restaurants were in Flushing, New York.
[4] In March, 1996, the applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada, under the intended occupation "chef". An interview was held on March 4, 1997, during which interview the applicant indicated that he was working in the United States illegally, cooking ham and turkey in a deli. The applicant avers that he also told the officer he prepared cold dishes, salads and buffets. The officer indicated that in her view, the applicant did not meet the training and experience requirements for the occupation of chef, and she expressed the view that the applicant's letters of reference appeared forged. The applicant's assertions that he had on-the-job training did not satisfy the officer and when the officer indicated that the applicant was not qualified as a chef, the applicant became verbally abusive.
[5] Nevertheless the officer did assess the applicant as a chef and as a Cook, Second, an occupation for which he appeared to have the necessary training and experience but for which there was no occupational demand. The officer did not assess the applicant as a farm equipment mechanic, as the applicant did not request this assessment in his application or in the interview.
Arguments of the parties
[6] The applicant submits that the officer failed to award the applicant proper points for education, to which the applicant was entitled by virtue of his college diploma. The officer, it is urged, was incorrect in indicating that the applicant had limited training, given the applicant's statements regarding on-the-job training. Moreover it is urged, after his rejection, that the applicant's experience entitles him to qualify as a Chef, Garde Manger, Chef, Rotisseur and as a Farm Equipment Mechanic, about which occupations the officer never questioned the applicant and made no assessment.
[7] The respondent urges that the applicant has not submitted any evidence before the Court to establish his college education and to contest the officer's assessment of his education. Further, the officer was not satisfied that the applicant met the training and experience requirements for the occupation of chef. The applicant has provided no evidence of either formal training or formal on-the-job training under the instruction of a qualified worker. The applicant did not indicate that he wished to be assessed in an alternate occupation and the officer lawfully assessed the applicant based on the evidence before her, in a fair manner and on the basis of relevant information in relation to the applicant's intended occupation and another in the field of cooking for which his background was considered to qualify him.
[8] I am not persuaded the visa officer erred in assessing the applicant's education for no evidence, other than his own statement in his application, was in the record to support his claim to have completed a college education. But even if the officer erred in that assessment, the maximum number of points to be assessed for his education was insufficient to result in a favourable assessment overall, given the visa officer's conclusion that he does not qualify for admission in the occupation of chef, or otherwise.
[9] The applicant claims he was not assessed in relation to the occupation chef, but the sworn affidavit of the officer avers that she did so assess him and concluded he was not qualified as a chef, as defined in the dictionary of occupations. That sworn evidence of the officer cannot be ignored. It is borne out by the existence in the departmental record of the assessment of the applicant and that clearly indicates he was assessed as a chef, and a second cook, and in neither occupation did he have sufficient points to qualify for admission to Canada. Thus his application was refused.
[10] It is urged the officer failed to consider the letters from the applicant's employer and past employers, letters which the visa officer suggested might be forgeries, but there is no evidence that she did not consider the letters. They were found not to be persuasive about his background and experience. In examining those letters that conclusion is supportable essentially because the letters were very superficial in describing his duties, supervision and on the job training. Ultimately, the assessment of his lack of experience to qualify as a chef was based upon his written application with supporting documents, such as they were, and his responses to questions at his interview. No basis is here established to overturn the officer's assessment, a matter of her discretion.
[11] Finally, the applicant urged that the visa officer failed to consider alternative occupations, other cooking occupations, and/or his past as a tractor repairer. Those were not raised in his visa application or at his interview. The officer had no obligation to consider any alternative occupation, except where one is inherently an included occupation, e.g., in this case, chef, and second cook, as is evident from the evidence before the officer. The officer did not err in assessing the applicant's application, in my opinion.
[12] For the reasons here set out an Order was issued following the hearing, confirming that the application for judicial review is dismissed.
W. Andrew MacKay
____________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
August 28, 1998