Date: 20000619
Docket: IMM-4657-99
BETWEEN:
Gaurav WANKHEDE
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.
[1] The applicant applied under the intended occupation of chef (NOC 6241.3) and cook (NOC 6242). The visa officer decided at the paper screening stage that the applicant did not have the employment requirements for those occupations and, therefore, he was not awarded enough points to be given an in-person interview.
[2] The NOC descriptions require, as training, "completion of a three-year cook"s apprenticeship program or formal training abroad or equivalent training and experience". Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant had fulfilled last requirement, that he has "equivalent training and experience" to formal training, or a "three-years cook"s apprenticeship program".
[3] Counsel argues that the visa office erred in not going behind the job titles and questioning the applicant about his actual experience, and this was a breach of the rules of procedural fairness. Counsel argues that the visa officer erred in assessing the material on the file and that the applicant has six years of "equivalent training and experience".
[4] The material that was placed before the visa officer is sparse. It discloses that the applicant obtained a diploma and then a bachelor"s degree in hotel management, worked as a hotel management trainee, and then as a catering assistant. On February 25, 1997, he commenced work as an "Indian cuisine chef". He would not have had three years experience in this last position at the time the visa officer made the decision that is under review.
[5] There was no evidence presented to the visa officer of the courses that were taken for the purpose of obtaining the hotel management diploma or degree. There is no letter or affidavit from the applicant stating that although his training and experience is described as being in hotel management and as "assistant catering", that he was really working as a chef or cook.
[6] There was no breach of duty by the visa officer in failing to seek further information from the applicant about the nature of his training and experience. The applicant has the obligation to put forward a prima facie case that he meets the employment requirements of the job with respect to which he asks to be assessed. The visa officer is not required to speculate that there might be some overlap between the training and experience of a chef and that of a hotel manager, and that training and experience in the latter occupation should be counted as training and experience in the former.
[7] There was no breach of fairness. There was no mischaracterization of the evidence of the applicant"s training and experience that was placed before the visa officer.
"B. Reed"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
June 19, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-4657-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: Gaurav WANKHEDE |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED J. |
DATED: MONDAY, JUNE 19, 2000
APPEARANCES: Mr. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
Barrister & Solicitor
18 Wynford Drive, Suite 707
North York, Ontario
M3C 3S2
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000619
Docket: IMM-4657-99
Between:
| Gaurav WANKHEDE |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |