Date: 19981103
Docket: IMM-5076-97
BETWEEN:
XIAO YING XU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN J.:
[1] The visa officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence. The applicant's intended occupation was accountant. Her degree was in international trade. She performed accounting functions for the firms she worked for in Hong Kong. However, the visa officer was not satisfied her responsibilities in the accounting field were of sufficient scope and breadth for her to be considered an experienced accountant. She was awarded 0 units of assessment for experience which rendered her ineligible for permanent residence under subsection 11(1) of the Immigration Regulations.
[2] The visa officer was satisfied she was a qualified and experienced bookkeeper. However, assessing her in the occupation of bookkeeper would not provide her with sufficient units to render her eligible to emigrate to Canada.
[3] Applicant's counsel says that when the evidence of the applicant's experience is compared to the CCDO description of accountant, it is obvious that the applicant is an experienced accountant. He further argues that a professional designation or training is not a mandatory requirement of the CCDO definition of accountant.
[4] Words can be found in the letters of reference submitted by the applicant that are the same or similar to words in the CCDO job description for accountant. The applicant had some involvement with budgeting, bookkeeping activities, some tax matters and preparation of financial statements, all of which are mentioned in the CCDO job description.
[5] While the CCDO is a binding system of classification and assessment (see Haughton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 111 F.T.R. 226, 34 IMM(2) 284), a visa officer has some discretion in assessing qualifications. Merely because an applicant's letters of reference contain words that are the same as those in the CCDO job description does not require that the visa officer automatically qualify an applicant in that occupation.
[6] In this case the visa officer was of the view that the applicant's responsibilities were not of sufficient scope and breadth for her to be considered an experienced accountant. The applicant performed several accounting operations and while the visa officer thought that this qualified her as an experienced bookkeeper, she was not satisfied this experience was sufficient to meet the occupational classification of accountant under the CCDO.
[7] There is no suggestion of bad faith, unfairness or reliance on irrelevant or extraneous considerations and therefore no basis for interfering with the visa officer's exercise of discretion (see Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Government of Canada, et al, 1982 2 SCR 2 at
pp 7 - 8).
[8] The judicial review is dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
November 3, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-5076-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: XIAO YING XU |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND |
IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Irvin Sherman
For the Applicant
Ms. Neeta Logsetty
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Matinello & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
208 - 255 Duncan Mill Rd.
North York, Ontario M3B 3H9
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981103
Docket: IMM-5076-97
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content