Date: 20021025
Docket: IMM-3518-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1110
BETWEEN:
GUO MEI PAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] Ms. Guo Mei Pan (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Lindie Rudover (the "Visa Officer"). In her decision, dated June 14, 2001, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The Applicant is an engineer. In August 1999, she applied for permanent residence in Canada as a member of the independent class. Her application was initially paper screened and referred to a visa officer for further review. An interview was conducted on June 7, 2001.
[3] The Visa Officer assessed the Applicant in the occupation of electrical engineer, National Occupational Classification ("NOC") 2133. The Visa Officer awarded 0 units of assessment for experience and 0 units for occupational factor because she was not satisfied that the Applicant had experience in her intended occupation or that the Applicant had performed a substantial number of the main duties of that occupation as set out in the NOC. Since sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, as amended, require that an applicant receive at least 1 unit for the experience and occupational factors and since the Applicant failed to obtain these necessary units of assessment, the Visa Officer rejected her application.
[4] The Applicant is a citizen of China. She holds a degree in engineering from the Shanghai University of Engineering Science. The tribunal record contains letters of recommendation from her former employers, speaking to the Applicant's work experience as an electrical engineer. As well, the tribunal record contains a letter from the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, acknowledging the Applicant's professional qualifications.
[5] The Applicant argued that the Visa Officer breached her duty to fully consider the submissions and information provided by her, thereby raising doubts whether a proper assessment of the evidence was made. She further argued that the decision was unreasonable because the Visa Officer narrowly construed the provisions of the NOC relative to the duties of an electrical engineer.
[6] The Respondent argued that the discretionary decision of a visa officer is entitled to a high degree of deference by the reviewing court. In this case, the Respondent submits that the Visa Officer determined at the interview, after a full review of the Applicant's file, that the Applicant lacked the requisite experience for an electrical engineer.
[7] The Respondent says that as long as there is evidence to support the Visa Officer's decision, it should not be set aside. In this regard, the Respondent relies on Farooqui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 182 F.T.R. 306 (T.D.).
[8] It is well established that the grounds for judicial intervention in the exercise of a statutory discretion are limited. However, in my opinion, such intervention is warranted in the present case.
[9] The record shows that the Applicant is a graduate engineer and that she has worked in the field of electrical engineering in China. It also shows that her professional qualifications have passed the preliminary screening by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. It appears that the Visa Officer did not fully assess this evidence in reaching her decision; see Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 4 Imm. L.R. (3d) 193 (F.C.T.D.). If there was a discrepancy between the Applicant's documented qualifications and experience and initial approval by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, the Applicant should have been provided an opportunity to address such discrepancies. The Applicant was entitled to a full assessment of her application and she did not receive such a full assessment in this case.
[10] The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for consideration in accordance with the law.
[11] No question for certification arises from this case.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for consideration in accordance with the law.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 25, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3518-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Guo Mei Pan v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 9, 2002
REASONS FOR Order AND ORDER : The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
DATED: October 25, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Nkunda I. Kabateraine For the Applicant
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Nkunda I. Kabateraine
Toronto, Ontario For the Applicant
Mr.Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario For the Respondent
Email this Content