Date: 20021010
Docket: IMM-4986-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1055
BETWEEN:
ANDREI PANOV
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of Benton Mischuk, a visa officer employed by the respondent at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, dated July 12, 2000, wherein he refused the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The applicant is a 36 year old citizen of Russia who applied for permanent residence in Canada as an Independent Skilled Worker under the category of Electronics Engineer, as classified in the National Occupational Classification (NOC) 2133.
[3] From June 1990 to March 1991, he was employed as a Design Engineer at a plant called Kominterna in Novosibirsk, Russia.
[4] From June 1991 to the time his application was assessed, the applicant was employed by a company called Monolit, also in Novosibirsk, Russia.
[5] On March 16, 2000, the applicant attended a personal interview at the Canadian Embassy in Moscow, and was interviewed by Benton Mischuk (the visa officer).
[6] The visa officer assessed the applicant on the basis of his intended occupation of Electronics Engineer.
[7] The applicant received the following units of assessment under the occupation of Electronics Engineer:
Age 10
Occupational Demand 05
Education/Training Factor 17
Experience 00
Arranged Employment 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 15
English 06
French 00
Personal Suitability 05
Total 66
[8] The visa officer believed that the applicant's experience more closely corresponded to the position of Electronics Engineering Technologist, NOC 2241. He then assessed the applicant on the basis of this alternate occupation.
[9] The applicant received the following units of assessment:
Age 10
Occupational Demand 01
Education/Training Factor 15
Experience 06
Arranged Employment 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 15
English 06
French 00
Personal Suitability 05
Total 66
[10] Under these assessments, the applicant did not have the 70 units that are required for permanent residence in Canada.
[11] The applicant was advised that his application for permanent residence in Canada was refused by letter dated July 12, 2000.
[12] The applicant first submits that the visa officer did a cursory review of the work performed in these occupations and as such, that he was denied procedural fairness. However, the CAIPS notes and the visa officer's affidavit are evidence that this was not the case.
[13] The applicant further submits that the granting of zero units for experience as an Electronics Engineer was perverse. I disagree. The visa officer determined that the applicant had performed a substantial number of the main duties outlined in the NOC when he worked as a Design Engineer for Kominterna. He awarded the applicant 5 units for occupational factor. However, as this employment period lasted only nine months, the visa officer was correct in not awarding any units since the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, require at least one year of experience before any units are awarded.
[14] With regard to the applicant's employment at the Monolit plant, the visa officer determined that the applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties outlined in the NOC. The reasons for his conclusion are as follows:
I determined that the Applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties outlined in the NOC description for Engineers. For example, the Applicant was unable to describe how he had conducted research on any electrical systems or networks, nor was he able to describe any instances where he prepared material cost or timing estimates during his work for Monolit. He had not designed the electrical system, but had relied on the designs prepared as part of the plan for the entire complex. The Applicant had supervised the installation of the electrical system and the maintenance of the system after that, however, this is a duty that is also performed by an engineering technologist.
Affidavit of Benton Mischuk at para. 13.
[15] Therefore, no units were awarded for experience for this position.
[16] Consequently, I can find no ground that could justify the Court's intervention.
[17] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 10, 2002.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4986-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: ANDREI PANOV
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATED: OCTOBER 10, 2002
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Michael Kishinevsky For the Applicant
Ms. Amina Riaz For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Michael Kishinevsky
Barrister and Solicitor
1600 Steeles Avenue West
Suite 219
Concord, ON L4K 4M2 For the Applicant
Ms. Amina Riaz
Department of Justice
130 King St. West, Suite 3400
Toronto, ON M5X 1K6 For the Respondent
Email this Content