Date: 20001013
Docket: IMM-3479-99
BETWEEN:
DANIEL CHARLES
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] Daniel Charles, a citizen of Trinidad, seeks judicial review of a May 10, 1999 decision of visa officer, B. Hamel-Smith, refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] At issue are the units of assessment ("units") awarded by the visa officer for experience and education.
[3] The applicant's intended occupation was Manufacturer's Agent, Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (CCDO) 5133-110. At the interview, the applicant outlined his relevant work experience at Sheik Lisha Ltd as a sales representative. In the applicant's affidavit, he states that he told the visa officer "my job at Sheik Lisha Ltd was representing a manufacturer with numerous products." Although the visa officer in her affidavit disputes this statement, there is no disagreement that in carrying out his duties for the company the applicant went to supermarkets/grocery stores where he displayed his employer's line of food and paper products and took orders for these products.
[4] The undated letter of reference from Sheik Lisha Ltd submitted at the interview stated "In his capacity as Sales Representative, Mr. Charles was responsible for the sales and promotion of our line of food and paper products." 1
[5] The applicant was also self employed for approximately three and a half years selling jeans and shirts door to door on a consignment basis. He was also a part-time taxi driver. At the interview, the visa officer informed the applicant that his duties at the Sheik Lisha Ltd were those of a Sales Representative, Food Products and not a Manufacturer's Agent. Consequently, she awarded him zero units for experience in his intended occupation.
[6] The Occupation of Manufacturer's Agent is described in the CCDO as:
| Sells single, allied, diversified or multi-line products, on commission basis, to wholesale, retail and other establishments for one or more foreign or domestic manufacturers: |
| Performs duties described in the definition for Unit Group 5133. |
| commercial travellers. Specializes in selling products as agent for manufacturing companies. Visits manufacturers to persuade them to sell their products through his services. Co-ordinates sales program for products handled. |
| May prepare advertising brochures and other literature. May be designated according to type of products sold; for example, |
[7] The CCDO description of a Sales Representative, Food Products is:
| Sells food products, such as produce, canned goods and meats, to retail and wholesale food stores, restaurants and institutions: |
| Performs duties described in the definition for Unit Group 5133. commercial travellers. Specializes in selling food products. Advises customers on product usage, pricing and display. |
| May also sell sundry items such as smoking supplies, toiletries and household goods. May be designated according to kind of food product sold; for example, |
[8] With respect to the occupation of Manufacturer's Agent, the visa officer noted that the applicant did not have experience in a number of the duties of a Manufacturer's Agent, namely,
| (i) he did not visit manufacturers to persuade them to sell their products using his service; |
| (ii) he did not co-ordinate sales programs for products handled; |
| (iii) he did not sell on commission basis; |
| (iv) he did not prepare advertising brochures and other literature. |
[9] The applicant submits that because the visa officer accepted that, at a minimum, he is qualified as a Sales Representative he must have satisfied her that he met the requirements of Unit Group 5133, which is the general description of commercial travellers. As the majority of the description for both occupations is that described for Unit Group 5133, the visa officer's interpretation that a Manufacturer's Agent and a Sales Representative are markedly different must be erroneous.
[10] The fact that there may be some overlap between the descriptions of two occupations or that they belong to the same unit group does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that if one satisfies the requirements for one of the occupations one would qualify in the other as well. If the requirements for the occupations of Manufacturer's Agent and Sales Representative were not sufficiently different, there would be no need for any separate description in the CCDO. Further, as noted by the visa officer, the SVP for a Manufacturer's Agent is 15 while that of a Sales Representative is 11, which indicates that a higher degree of proficiency is required for the occupation of Manufacturer's Agent.
[11] Based on the applicant's own description of his duties at Sheik Lisha Ltd and having regard to the two descriptions of the occupations in the CCDO, it was reasonably open to the visa officer to conclude that the applicant did not have the requisite experience to meet the requirements of a Manufacturer's Agent.
[12] The applicant also challenges the visa officer's assessment of his education. The applicant submitted a diploma from Herzing Institute certifying his satisfactory completion of a micro computers and accounting program. At the interview, he stated that the program required his attendance at classes from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. three days per week. A letter from the Institute confirmed he attended their evening program in micro computer management.
[13] The applicant also submitted a diploma from Career Canada College attesting to his successful completion of the Electrocardiography Technician program of study. This required his attendance five days per week from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. from January or February 1992 to July 1992.
[14] The applicant submits that either one of these programs should have qualified him to receive 10 units for education under subparagraph (1)(c)(i) of Schedule 1 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 and that the visa officer erred in awarding him only 5 units under subparagraph (1)(b)(i) of the Education Factor. To be awarded 10 units for education, the applicant must complete a diploma program which in addition to certain admission standards must have included at least one year of full time classroom study period.
[15] With respect to the applicant's diploma from Herzing Institute, I am not persuaded that the visa officer erred when she concluded that a program of study requiring attendance three evenings per week over the course of the year would not qualify as one year of full-time classroom study.
[16] As to his diploma as an Electrocardiography Technician counsel for the applicant argued that since one year of full-time study at a Canadian university ordinarily only requires 8 months of actual study, it follows that his program of study at Career College Canada qualifies as one year of full-time classroom study.
[17] It seems to me that this argument is flawed. It is the completion of the required number of courses that result in a student being credited with having completed one year of university studies. Whether the courses are completed within the traditional academic year is immaterial. In this case, the visa officer did not err in her assessment of the applicant's education.
[18] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[19] Neither party submitted a question for certification.
OTTAWA
__________________
1 Tribunal Record p. 35.
2 Tribunal Record p. 14.
3 Ibid.
Email this Content