Date: 20030603
Docket: IMM-829-02
Citation: 2003 FCT 700
Ottawa, Ontario, this 3rd day of June, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
HAFIZ KALIM AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Ahmad applied to become a permanent resident of Canada. According to his application form, his intended occupation was Textile Engineer. His current position at a textile plant in Lahore, Pakistan, is Assistant Spinning Master. He is on leave from that position while studying in the United States.
[2] A visa officer at the Canadian Consulate in New York evaluated Mr. Ahmad against the qualifications for a Textile Engineer (National Occupational Classification (NOC), 2148). She found that his work experience in Lahore did not match the official description of that occupation and was unable to award Mr. Ahmad any credit for experience. The officer awarded him a total score of 67 points, just short of the 70 points required for a successful application. Apparently, a clerical error caused him to be given 5 points too many. This is not an issue in this case.
[3] The officer went on to consider Mr. Ahmad's qualifications in respect of an alternative occupation. She found that his experience closely matched the duties of a Textile Processing Supervisor (NOC 9216) but discovered there is apparently no demand in Canada for persons with those qualifications. In the result, she concluded that Mr. Ahmad did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.
[4] Mr. Ahmad argues that the visa officer made a serious error in not crediting his Assistant Spinning Master experience toward his Textile Engineer credentials. He also suggests that the officer should have gone on to consider his qualifications in other job categories for which there was a greater demand in Canada and in respect of which he might have scored more points. He asks the Court to order a reconsideration of his file.
I. Issues
1. Did the visa officer make a serious error in failing to give Mr. Ahmad credit for his previous experience?
2. Did the officer fail to treat Mr. Ahmad fairly by not considering other job classifications in which he might have succeeded?
A. Did the visa officer make a serious error in failing to give Mr. Ahmad credit for his previous experience?
[5] Mr. Ahmad trained as a Textile Engineer. He obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Punjab and an Engineering Degree from A.N. Kosygin Textile University in Moscow. He started out at a firm called Saira Textiles in 1998 as an intern and then was promoted to Assistant Spinning Master.
[6] A detailed job description was supplied by Mr. Ahmad's employer. His duties mainly involved coordinating and supervising production, maintaining equipment and troubleshooting.The officer's notes disclose that she reviewed this information very carefully and compared it against the official description of a Textile Engineer (NOC 2148). That description is very brief. It simply states:
Textile engineers design and develop processes, equipment and procedures for the production of fibres, yarns and textiles.
[7] The officer found that none of the duties outlined in Mr. Ahmad's job description involved design or development. To be sure of this, she specifically asked Mr. Ahmad about it. He said that in his two years at Saira Textiles he had not yet been involved in those kinds of activities. It was something his superiors did.
[8] Mr. Ahmad argues that the officer was wrong to require that he have experience in design or development. However, this seems to be a common requirement for many categories of professional engineers. For example, biomedical engineers "design and develop medical and clinical instrumentation". Marine and naval engineers "design and develop marine vessels and floating structures" (NOC 2148).
[9] The visa officer appears to have correctly applied the occupational requirements of a Textile Engineer and made a reasonable assessment of Mr. Ahmad's experience.
B. Did the officer fail to treat Mr. Ahmad fairly by not considering other job classifications in which he might have succeeded?
[10] As mentioned, the visa officer concluded that Mr. Ahmad's experience matched the duties of another occupation - Textile Processing Supervisor. However, she found that there was no demand in that job category. Mr. Ahmad argues that the officer should have gone further and considered his qualifications for other occupations for which there was a demand in Canada. He suggests that he should have been considered, for example, for positions such as a Textile Machinery Mechanic (NOC 7317), an Industrial Engineering and Manufacturing Technologist (NOC 2233) or an Industrial Instrument Technician and Mechanic (NOC 2243).
[11] Generally speaking, it is the applicant's duty to identify suitable occupational classifications and supply the information necessary for a proper assessment to be made: Madan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1198 at para. 6 (QL) (T.D.). A visa officer does have a duty to consider an applicant in other job categories if requested to do so (Siforov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 724, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1061 at para. 9 (QL) (T.D.)). An officer also has a duty to consider other categories that are inherent in the applicant's employment experience (Parmar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 1532 at para. 19 (QL) (T.D.)).
[12] It appears to me that the visa officer discharged the duty to consider an alternative occupation inherent in Mr. Ahmad's work experience. I cannot accept, as Mr. Ahmad submits, that "[f]airness requires that the officer, in assessing an included occupation, look to all those under which the applicant may fall." This would place too heavy a burden on visa officers, who cannot be expected to consider all of the possibilities in every case, and too light an onus on applicants, who must take responsibility for the quality and completeness of their applications.
[13] In this case, the visa officer treated Mr. Ahmad fairly by considering his application thoroughly and exploring the possibility that he might qualify in respect of an alternative occupation which he had not identified and which closely matched his employment experience. I find no error in the visa officer's handling of Mr. Ahmad's file.
II. Disposition
[14] This application for judicial review is dismissed.
[15] Counsel for Mr. Ahmad requested an opportunity to make submissions on the certification of a question of general importance. Any such submissions should be filed within five (5) days of the issuance of these reasons, with an additional three (3) days for any response the respondent may wish to make.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. Any submissions by the applicant on the certification of a question of general importance should be filed within five (5)days of the issuance of these reasons, with an additional three (3) days for any response the respondent may wish to make.
"James W. O'Reilly"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-829-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: HAFIZ KALIM AHMAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: JUNE 3, 2003
APPEARANCES BY:
Ms. Barbara Jackman FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Stephen H. Gold FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Ms. Barbara Jackman
Barrister and Solicitor
596 St. Clair Ave. West, Suite 3
Toronto, Ontario M6C 1A6 FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Email this Content