Date: 20001019
Docket: IMM-2636-99
BETWEEN:
SAULIUS MALAKAUSKAS
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] The applicant, Sauliaus Malakauskas a citizen of Lithuania, seeks judicial review of the April 8, 1999 decision of a visa officer at the Canadian Consulate General in Buffalo, New York, denying his application for permanent residence in Canada under the independent category.
[2] In his application dated June 16, 1998, the applicant indicated his intended occupation as Mechanical Engineer under the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") code 2132.0. He outlined his employment history as having worked as a mechanical engineer from 1985 to 1993 at the Joint Stock Company Pergale in Lithuania ("Pergale"). Following a move to the United States, he worked as a mechanical engineer technician from 1994 to the date of the application for Transport Trailer Service ("Transport Trailer"). No letters of reference were provided from either of these two employers.
[3] With respect to his education, he stated he had a Bachelor Degree in Mechanical Engineering. A letter from the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers confirmed, based on their informal assessment, his engineering qualifications appeared to be acceptable for immigration purposes.
[4] The visa officer noted the applicant's previous application for permanent residence in 1997 was refused. This earlier refusal was not disclosed, as required, in the new application.
[5] A comparison of the 1997 and 1998 applications revealed contradictory information regarding the applicant's work history. Although the current application stated the applicant worked at Pergale as a Mechanical Engineer, the 1997 application indicated he worked at Pergale as a mechanic fitter and later as a supervisor in the same department. As well, in the 1997 application the applicant stated he worked as a welder for Robert's Sheet Metal Works in Chicago from 1994 to the date of the application, whereas in the 1998 application he stated he had been working as a mechanical engineer technician at Transport Trailer Service in Lemont during the same period of time. When the visa officer telephoned this latter company, he was told that the applicant started to work there in 1996 as a truck driver.
[6] At the time of the processing of the 1997 application, the visa officer had concluded that a letter of reference from Robert's Sheet Metal Works was a forgery.
[7] On January 12, 1999, the visa officer wrote to the applicant detailing his concerns surrounding the contradictory information and his failure to disclose his prior application for permanent residence.
[8] In response, the visa officer received a letter from the General Manager of Transport Trailer stating that the applicant was hired as a part-time mechanical engineering consultant in 1994 and had worked "on and off". The letter went on to say that in 1996 the company needed more than a part-time engineering technician and the applicant was hired full-time. However, it also noted that because they did not need a full-time engineering technician the applicant was hired as a truck driver with additional duties assisting with trailer structural modifications. The visa officer tried to reach the general manager by telephone to clarify the applicant's duties but his call was not returned.
[9] The applicant provided no additional information concerning his duties at Pergale in response to the visa officer's letter.
[10] The visa officer assessed the applicant under the occupations of mechanical engineer, mechanical engineering technician and truck driver. The applicant failed to obtain the required units of assessment in these occupations. As well, because the visa officer concluded the applicant did not have a minimum of one year experience either as an engineer or an engineering technician, he was inadmissible pursuant to the Immigration Regulations, SOR/78-172. Additionally, under the occupation of truck driver, he received zero units for the occupational factor placing him within the inadmissible class of persons under the regulations. The application was denied.
[11] The applicant submits the visa officer ignored and misconstrued relevant evidence in reaching his conclusion concerning his experience as a mechanical engineer and engineering technician; that the visa officer breached the duty of fairness in failing to investigate further the nature of the applicant's duties at Pergale and Transport Trailer; and that the visa officer was biassed and accordantly failed to fairly assess the applicant's experience.
[12] These submissions are without merit. The applicant was given ample opportunity to demonstrate that his duties at Pergale were those of a mechanical engineer. He failed to offer any evidence to support his claim. As well, on the earlier application he described his work as mechanic fitter. Regarding his work at Transport Trailer, given the information available to the officer, it was reasonable for him to conclude that this did not equate to one year of experience in either occupation. The submission that the certificate from the Canadian Association of Professional Engineers corroborates the applicant's assertions concerning his work experience is a mischaracterization of the limited purpose of the letter which deals only with qualifications and not experience.
[13] With respect to the lack of investigation by the visa officer, the onus is on the applicant to provide the relevant evidence to support his claimed experience. As stated earlier, the applicant was given ample opportunity to address the visa officer's concerns.
[14] As to the allegations of bias which were not supported by any analysis, in my view, the visa officer's suspicions and skepticism were well founded under these circumstances.
[15] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[16] Neither party submitted a question for certification.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 19, 2000
Email this Content