Ang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 949

Date: 20020909

Docket: IMM-2612-01

Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 949

BETWEEN:

                                           ANTONIO ANG

                                                                                                     Applicant

                                                    - and -

       THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                 Respondent

                       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

CAMPBELL J.

[1]    This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a Visa Officer, dated April 30, 2001, refusing the Applicant's application for permanent residence.

[2]    In his application, the Applicant specifically requested an assessment under two job categories, Tool & Cutter Grinder, and Machinist. The Applicant's central challenge to the decision under review is that the Visa Officer erred in failing to assess him under the latter category of Machinist. I am in agreement.

[3]    In the present case, the Visa Officer stated that she reviewed the Applicant's experience and education against the National Occupational Classification for a Machinist. The Visa Officer determined that the Applicant did not meet either the employment requirements or that he had carried out the main duties. The Visa Officer ultimately assessed the Applicant as a Tool & Cutter Grinder, and a formal points assessment was made in this category. The assessment was recorded in the Visa Officer's CAIPS notes and included in the refusal letter.

[4]    It is well-established authority of this Court that a visa officer is required to conduct a formal assessment of each of the occupations presented by the Applicant for consideration (Issaeva v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1996), 87 Imm. L.R. (2^nd) 91). Recently, in Manabat v. Canada (M.C.I.),[2002] F.C.J. No. 985, Gibson J. clarified that a formal assessment "includes a point-count assessment in accordance with subsections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Regulations". The record in the present case indicates that such a formal assessment was not conducted for both occupational categories requested in the Applicant's application for permanent residence. As a result, I find the Visa Officer erred in law.

                                                O R D E R

Accordingly, the Visa Officer's decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to a different visa officer for redetermination.

                                                                              "Douglas R. Campbell"

                                                                                                           Judge     

Calgary, Alberta

September 9, 2002

                          FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                       TRIAL DIVISION

    NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                   IMM-2612-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:Antonio Ang v. MCI   

PLACE OF HEARING:                                   CALGARY, Alberta

DATE OF HEARING:                                     September 9, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : CAMPBELL, J.

DATED:                      September 9, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Peter Wong                                                   FOR APPLICANT

Mr. W. Brad Hardstaff                                               FOR RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Caron & Partners LLP                                               FOR APPLICANT

Calgary, Alberta

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada                   FOR RESPONDENT