Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-4415-99
BETWEEN:
KUMUD CHANDRA KAR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HENEGHAN J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of Sarasa Nair (the "visa officer") dated July 21, 1999, wherein the visa officer refused the application of Kumud Chandra Kar (the "Applicant") for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] On April 22, 1997, the Immigration Section of the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi, received the Applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada. The Applicant applied under the skilled worker category and indicated that his intended occupation was that of "Quantity Surveyor".
[3] On July 21, 1999, the visa officer refused the Applicant"s application for permanent residence. In the refusal letter, the visa officer indicated the following:
| During the course of your interview, it was determined that you do not perform the duties of Quantity Surveyor (CCDO 1179180) as described in the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations and (NOC 2234) as described in the National Occupational Classification. I was, therefore, unable to approve your application under that occupation. |
| Based on the information provided by you at your interview, I determined that the duties performed by you are similar to those of Civil Engineering Technician (CCDO 2165222) and NOC 2231.2). I, therefore, assessed you against the requirements for that occupation. The units of assessment you have been awarded for each of the selection criteria are: |
| Occupational Factor 01 01 |
| Specific Vocational Preparation / |
The Applicant"s application for permanent residence was refused as he failed to obtain the 70 points required for immigration to Canada.
[4] The first argument raised by he Applicant is that the visa officer erred in finding that the Applicant did not have experience in his intended occupation because he failed to perform all the duties set out in the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations ("CCDO") and the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") description.
[5] Upon a careful review of all the material, I cannot conclude that the visa officer erred in determining that the Applicant did not have the required experience for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor and the equivalent occupation under the NOC
of Construction Estimator.
[6] Although the Applicant had some experience with the items included in the description of the intended occupation, for example, his experience with tenders and calculating rates, I am of the opinion that the Applicant"s experience fell short of the detailed analysis and costs projections associated with the title Quantity Surveyor and the NOC equivalent, Construction Estimator.
[7] Furthermore, I refer to the visa officer"s affidavit, paragraph 13, where the visa officer stated that the Applicant"s duties "pertaining to financial administration and cost advice to construction industry was limited to finding out rates, calculating rates, quoting the cost in tender papers and submission of tender papers, making running account bill." Moreover, following the interview, the visa officer determined that "these duties performed by him were a very minor portion of his duties and were only incidental to the major part of his duties which was supervision of the construction work". The visa officer noted that "the Quantity Surveyor"s principal job is to provide financial administration and cost advice to the construction industry."
[8] Having reviewed all the material submitted, I am of the opinion that this conclusion is reasonable.
[9] The next argument raised by the Applicant is that the visa officer failed to assess the Applicant as a Construction Estimator, NOC 2234. However, I must note that the refusal letter specifically states that the Applicant was assessed under the NOC, number 2234. In the visa officer"s affidavit, the visa officer again stated that the Applicant was assessed under the NOC of Construction Estimator. NOC 2234 is the NOC for Construction Estimator. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the visa officer failed to assess the Applicant as a Construction Estimator.
[10] Finally, the Applicant argues that the visa officer erred in awarding the Applicant only two points for his language abilities in assessing the Applicant as a Civil Engineering Technician. Based on the material before me, I cannot conclude that the visa officer erred in assessing the Applicant"s language abilities.
[11] Accordingly, as a result of the foregoing, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[12] Counsel for the parties have seven days from their receipt of these reasons to submit a question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
June 22, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: KUMUD CHANDRA KAR |
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Max Chaudhary |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office |
18 Wynford Drive
Suite 708
North York, Ontario
M3C 3S2
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-4415-99
BETWEEN:
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Email this Content