Date: 20010403
Docket: IMM-1357-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 283
Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday the 3rd day of April 2001
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson
BETWEEN:
HARJINDER SINGH JAWANDA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] I have not been persuaded that the visa officer committed any reviewable error in assessing either Mr. Jawanda's personal suitability or his ability in the English language.
[2] The visa officer was not, however, correct in awarding Mr. Jawanda 0 units of assessment for experience as a Cook, Speciality Foods (CCDO 6121-126) in circumstances where the visa officer also awarded Mr. Jawanda 10 units for the occupational factor with respect to that same occupation. These awards are inconsistent because at the material time Schedule I of the lmmigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 required a visa officer when assessing the occupational factor to consider what the employment opportunities in Canada were for the occupation in which the applicant had performed a substantial number of the main duties set out in the CCDO description of the occupation. An award under that factor is premised on the existence of some experience.
[3] However, in my view, for such error to be reviewable there must be some evidence that the applicant had relevant experience, and the error must be material to the decision of the visa officer.
[4] In the present case, I accept that the error was likely material to the decision in that if Mr. Jawanda had received the 8 units of assessment in respect of his experience which he asserted he was entitled to receive, Mr. Jawanda would have received more than the minimum required units of assessment.
[5] However, I am not satisfied that there was some evidence of relevant experience before the visa officer. The visa officer did not believe Mr. Jawanda had worked as a cook in charge of a marriage palace as he asserted, and concluded that Mr. Jawanda had no experience as a Cook, Specialty Foods.
[6] The visa officer made his finding as to credibility on the basis that:
i. Mr. Jawanda did not know how to prepare a new tandoor for use when in the visa officer's experience cooks who prepare Northern Indian food such as Mr. Jawanda described knew this;
ii. The visa officer asked Mr. Jawanda a question about menu items and quantities of food to be purchased for a wedding party which included vegetarians and was within the size of that handled at the marriage palace where Mr. Jawanda said he worked. The visa officer concluded that the quantities estimated by Mr. Jawanda were insufficient and that it was inappropriate for Mr. Jawanda to respond that he would offer chicken to vegetarians.
[7] In that circumstance I cannot find that the visa officer's conclusion as to credibility was not reasonably open to him. It follows that in the absence of evidence of experience the visa officer did not commit a reviewable error in awarding at the same time 0 units for experience and 10 units for the occupation factor.
[8] I have not been satisfied that any breach of procedural fairness occurred. It is settled law that it is the applicant who is responsible for putting forward all relevant information which may assist his or her application.
[9] In the result, the application for judicial review will be dismissed. Counsel did not propose any question for certification and none is certified.
[10] The Court was much assisted by and appreciated the articulate and concise submissions of counsel for both parties.
JUDGMENT
[11] IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Eleanor R. Dawson"
Judge