Date: 20020620
Docket: IMM-4050-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 697
Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, the 20th day of June 2002
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
RANA MEHBOOB SINGH KAPOOR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant has challenged, by way of judicial review, the decision of a visa officer denying him permanent residence in Canada, as an independent, in the intended occupation Financial Auditor/Accountant (NOC 1111).
[2] The visa officer determined that the applicant ". . . did not have the required qualification (sic) or experience to be assessed as an Accountant/Auditor". The officer provided the applicant with alternative occupations to consider for assessment and the occupation of bookkeeper was agreed upon (NOC 1231). The applicant failed to obtain the required 70 units of assessment as a bookkeeper and his application was denied.
[3] The applicant alleges that the visa officer erred in his assessment with respect to the occupation of auditor on the principal ground that the officer misinterpreted both the academic qualifications and the employment requirements of the NOC description.
[4] I have carefully reviewed and considered all of the documentation in the record as well as the submissions made at the hearing. Despite the articulate submissions of counsel for the respondent, I agree with the applicant's submission.
[5] A prospective immigrant is entitled to be assessed in his intended occupation. The NOC 1111 description states that auditors require education, training and accreditation as indicated for chartered accountants, certified general accountants or certified management accountants and some experience as an accountant.
[6] Here, the visa officer looked only to the requirements for chartered accountants in assessing the applicant's qualifications. He failed to consider the requirements regarding certified general accountants or those with respect to certified management accountants. In considering the employment requirements only for chartered accountants, the visa officer erred.
[7] Since there is nothing in the CAIPS (Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System) notes to indicate an assessment of experience was conducted and the visa officer's affidavit refers to experience only in a generalized manner in the phrase "qualifications and experience", I am unable to conclude that the visa officer assessed the applicant's experience as an auditor. The CAIPS notes state, "ADVISED SUBJECT THAT BASED ON HIS ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION (sic), HE COULD NOT BE ASSESSED AS A (sic) AUDITOR ACCOUNTANT". It appears that once the officer believed that the applicant did not meet the academic qualifications, which he mistakenly regarded as being those relative to chartered accountants, he concluded that the applicant should not be assessed as an auditor.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the visa officer is quashed and the applicant's application for permanent residence is referred back for reconsideration by a different visa officer. Counsel posed no question for certification and no question is certified.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson" __________________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4050-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: RANA MEHBOOB SINGH KAPOOR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
DATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 20, 2002
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Matthew Oommen
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
Barrister and 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: 20020620
Docket:IMM-4050-00
BETWEEN:
RANA MEHBOOB SINGH KAPOOR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
Email this Content