Date: 20030131
Docket: IMM-3279-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 105
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 31st DAY OF JANUARY, 2003
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN
BETWEEN:
RUKSHANA PATEL ADAM
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
-
- Ms. Rukshana Patel Adam (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer "Anne Joli-Coeur (the "Visa Officer"). In her decision, dated June 8, 2001, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
-
[2] The Applicant is a British citizen. In July 2000, she applied for permanent residence in Canada in the "independent" category. She described her intended occupation in Canada as an Accountant; this occupation is classified under the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") as NOC 1111.2.
[3] According to the materials submitted with her application, the Applicant holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree that she received in 1982, followed by a Diploma of Banking in 1983 and a Masters of Commerce degree in 1987, all from the Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, India. She worked as an accountant in London, England from 1996 to 1999. She also worked as an accountant in New York City from 1999 to 2000, while in possession of a H-1B visa issued by the government of the United States.
[4] The Applicant has a sister living in Toronto, Ontario. In this regard, she provided proof of relationship but no proof of her sister's status in Canada.
[5] On June 5, 2001, the Applicant attended an interview in New York City. She was questioned by the Visa Officer about the courses she had taken in obtaining her degrees. She was also questioned about her experience as an accountant.
[6] By letter dated June 8, 2001, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application. The Visa Officer stated that she was not satisfied that the Applicant met the employment requirements set out in NOC 1111. She also said she was not satisfied that the Applicant had completed the education which she claimed. In the Visa Officer's opinion, the Applicant was not qualified to work as an accountant in Canada.
[7] The Applicant argues that the Visa Officer committed a reviewable error in her assessment of her experience or in her assessment of her education and training.
[8] The Visa Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had completed the university studies for which she presented her degrees. In part, this finding is based upon the inability of the Applicant to speak knowledgeably about course studies she had followed in university or to provide information about her marks. The Visa Officer noted, as well, that the Applicant was unable to explain how she translated her asserted academic training into practical terms, for her work as an accountant. The Visa Officer recorded that the Applicant was unable to describe different depreciation systems and the Applicant was unable to explain the tasks she performed, as listed in her employment letter.
[9] In the Computerized Assisted Information Program System ("CAIPS") notes, the Visa Officer observed that the Applicant had completed certain studies in England which were equivalent to an "A" level, but not to a university degree.
[10] The Visa Officer awarded 10 units for education on the basis that she was not satisfied that the Applicant had shown she was entitled to a higher award of units.
[11] The assessment of education for a prospective immigrant in the "independent" category is governed by Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations, SOR78-172, as amended (the "Regulations"), specifically, in this case, factor 1, section (1)(b)(ii). The Visa Officer here was not satisfied that the Applicant was entitled to a higher assessment on the basis of the material before her, which material is contained in the certified Tribunal Record. That conclusion is reasonably supported by the evidence.
[12] The Visa Officer also concluded that the Applicant had failed to show that she was entitled to any units of assessment for the occupational factor, that is factor 4 of Schedule I. Factor 4 provides as follows:
===========================================================
Column I Column II Column III
Factors Criteria Maximum Units
---------------------------------
4. Occupational Factor (1) Units of assessment shall be awarded 10
on the basis of employment opportunities
in Canada in the occupation
(a) for which the applicant meets the
employment requirements for Canada
as set out in the National Occupational
Classification;
(b) in which the applicant has performed
a substantial number of the main duties
as set out in the National Occupational
Classification, including the essential ones;
and
(c) that the applicant is prepared to follow
in Canada.
(2) The employment opportunities shall be
determined by taking into account labour market
activity on both an area and a national basis,
following consultation with the Department
of Human Resources Development, provincial
governments and any other relevant organizations
and institutions.
===========================================================
Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III
Facteurs Critères Nombre maximal
de points
---------------------------------
4. Facteur professionnel (1) Des points d'appréciation sont attribués en 10
fonction des possibilités d'emploi au Canada
dans la profession_:
a) à l'égard de laquelle le requérant
satisfait aux conditions d'accès, pour le
Canada, établies dans la Classification
nationale des professions;
b) pour laquelle le requérant a exercé un
nombre substantiel des fonctions principales
établies dans la Classification nationale des
professions, dont les fonctions essentielles;
c) que le requérant est prêt à exercer au
Canada.
(2) Ces possibilités sont déterminées en fonction
de l'activité sur le marché du travail aux niveaux
national et régional, après consultation du ministère
du Développement des ressources humaines, des
gouvernements provinciaux et de toute autre
organisation ou institution compétente.
[13] The Visa Officer found that the Applicant was not qualified as an accountant and, further that she had not worked as an accountant. This finding is recorded in the CAIPS notes where the Visa Officer expressed her doubts that the Applicant had any experience as an accountant.
[14] The Applicant relies on her employment in the United States as an accountant to support her claim for experience in the field. She presented a letter from her current employer in that country. The Visa Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had met the employment requirements in the NOC, in regard to her experience and training.
[15] On the basis of the material in the record, this conclusion of the Visa Officer is reasonable. Having regard to the high degree of deference owed to a visa officer's factual findings in relation to requirements of the NOC (see: Farooqui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 182 F.T.R. 306 and Shah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No.645 (T.D.) (QL)), I find no basis for reversing the Visa Officer's decision.
[16] The application for judicial review is dismissed. Counsel advised that no question for certification arises.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-3279-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: RUKSHANA PATEL ADAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JANUARY 23, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Irvin H. Sherman, Q.C.
For the Applicant
Ms Param-Preet Singh
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Martinello & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
Suite 208 - 255 Duncan Mill Road
Don Mills, Ontario
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:20030131
Docket: IMM-3279-01
BETWEEN:
RUKSHANA PATEL ADAM
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content