A'Bed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1027

Date: 20021001

Docket: IMM-363-01

                                                                                                              Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1027

BETWEEN:

                                                  YAHIA MUSTAFA KHALIL A'BED

                                                                                                                                                      Applicant,

                                                                              - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                  Respondent.

                                                            REASONS FOR ORDER

KELEN J.:

        This is an application for judicial review of the decision of visa officer Anne Joli-Coeur dated December 18, 2000 refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada as a civil engineer. The visa officer decided that the applicant, who is a civil engineer, was not entitled to any units of assessment as a civil engineer because he worked as a construction manager, not as a civil engineer. The case considers the proper legal interpretation of the applicable provision of the Immigration Regulations, and the reasonableness of the visa officer's decision.

FACTS

        The applicant, a citizen of Jordan, has resided in the United States since 1992. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and applied to immigrate to Canada as a civil engineer. The visa officer, after interviewing the applicant, awarded him no units of assessment for "experience" as an engineer and no points for being in the engineering "occupational category" listed in Schedule I to the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, as amended (the "Regulations"). As a result, the applicant received 63 of the required 70 points. The applicant submits that he is entitled to 8 points for experience as an engineer, and 5 points for being in the engineering occupation category.

        In her decision the visa officer stated that she awarded the applicant no points for experience and occupational factors because he had not performed "a substantial amount of the main duties, including the essential ones, of a civil engineer as set out in the National Occupational Classification ("NOC")."

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

        Section 11 of the Regulations is relevant to this case:

11. (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (5), a visa officer shall not issue an immigrant visa pursuant to subsection 9(1) or 10(1) or (1.1) to an immigrant who is assessed on the basis of factors listed in column I of Schedule I and is not awarded any units of assessment for the factor set out in item 3 thereof unless the immigrant

(a) has arranged employment in Canada and has a written statement from the proposed employer verifying that he is willing to employ an inexperienced person in the position in which the person is to be employed, and the visa officer is satisfied that the person can perform the work required without experience; or

(b) is qualified for and is prepared to engage in employment in a designated occupation.

11. (2)

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a visa officer shall not issue an immigrant visa pursuant to section 9 or 10 to an immigrant other than an entrepreneur, an investor, a provincial nominee or a self-employed person unless

(a) the units of assessment awarded to that immigrant include at least one unit of assessment for the factor set out in item 4 of Column I of Schedule I;

(b) the immigrant has arranged employment in Canada; or

(c) the immigrant is prepared to engage in employment in a designated occupation.

11. (3)

(3) A visa officer may

(a) issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is not awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10 or who does not meet the requirements of subsection (1) or (2), or

(b) refuse to issue an immigrant visa to an immigrant who is awarded the number of units of assessment required by section 9 or 10,

if, in his opinion, there are good reasons why the number of units of assessment awarded do not reflect the chances of the particular immigrant and his dependants of becoming

11. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3) et (5), l'agent des visas ne peut délivrer un visa d'immigrant selon les paragraphes 9(1) ou 10(1) ou (1.1) à l'immigrant qui est apprécié suivant les facteurs énumérés à la colonne I de l'annexe I et qui n'obtient aucun point d'appréciation pour le facteur visé à l'article 3 de cette annexe, à moins que l'immigrant :

a) n'ait un emploi réservé au Canada et ne possède une attestation écrite de l'employeur éventuel confirmant qu'il est disposé à engager une personne inexpérimentée pour occuper ce poste, et que l'agent des visas ne soit convaincu que l'intéressé accomplira le travail voulu sans avoir nécessairement de l'expérience; ou

b) ne possède les compétences voulues pour exercer un emploi dans une profession désignée, et ne soit disposé à le faire.

11. (2)

(2) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3) et (4), l'agent des visas ne délivre un visa en vertu des articles 9 ou 10 à un immigrant autre qu'un entrepreneur, un investisseur, un candidat d'une province ou un travailleur autonome, que si l'immigrant :

a) a obtenu au moins un point d'appréciation pour le facteur visé à l'article 4 de la colonne I de l'annexe I;

b) a un emploi réservé au Canada; ou

c) est disposé à exercer une profession désignée.

11. (3)

(3) L'agent des visas peut

a) délivrer un visa d'immigrant à un immigrant qui n'obtient pas le nombre de points d'appréciation requis par les articles 9 ou 10 ou qui ne satisfait pas aux exigences des paragraphes (1) ou (2), ou

b) refuser un visa d'immigrant à un immigrant qui obtient le nombre de points d'appréciation requis par les articles 9 ou 10,

s'il est d'avis qu'il existe de bonnes raisons de croire que le nombre de points d'appréciation obtenu ne reflète pas les chances de cet immigrant particulier et des personnes à sa

successfully established in Canada and those reasons have been submitted in writing to, and approved by, a senior immigration officer.

charge de réussir leur installation au Canada et que ces raisons ont été soumises par écrit à un agent d'immigration supérieur et ont reçu l'approbation de ce dernier.

        The relevant portions of Schedule I to the Regulations are found in Items 3, 4 and 9. They read as follows:

3. Experience

Units of assessment shall be awarded for experience in the occupation in which the applicant is assessed under item 4 or, in the case of an entrepreneur, for experience in the occupation for which the entrepreneur is qualified and that the entrepreneur is prepared to follow in Canada, as follows:

(a) when the number of units awarded under item 2 is one or two, two units for the first year of experience;

(b) when the number of units awarded under item 2 is five to seven, two units for each year of experience not exceeding two years;

(c) when the number of units awarded under item 2 is 15, two units for each year of experience not exceeding three years; and

(d) when the number of units awarded under item 2 is 17 or 18, two units for each year of experience not exceeding four years.

4. Occupational Factor

(1) Units of assessment shall be awarded on the basis of employment opportunities in Canada in the occupation

(a) for which the applicant meets the employment requirements for Canada as set out in the National Occupational Classification;

(b) in which the applicant has performed a substantial number of the main duties as set out in the National Occupational Classification, including the essential ones; and

(c) that the applicant is prepared to follow in Canada.

9. Personal Suitability

Units of assessment shall be awarded on the basis of an interview with the person to reflect the personal

3. Expérience

Des points d'appréciation sont attribués pour l'expérience acquise dans la profession pour laquelle le requérant est apprécié selon l'article 4 ou, dans le cas d'un entrepreneur, pour l'expérience acquise dans la profession pour laquelle il possède les compétences voulues et qu'il est prêt à exercer au Canada. Ces points sont attribués selon le barème suivant_:

a) lorsque 1 ou 2 points sont attribués aux termes de l'article 2, 2 points pour la première année d'expérience;

b) lorsque de 5 à 7 points sont attribués aux termes de l'article 2, 2 points pour chaque année d'expérience jusqu'à 2 années;

c) lorsque 15 points sont attribués aux termes de l'article 2, 2 points pour chaque année d'expérience jusqu'à 3 années;

d) lorsque 17 ou 18 points sont attribués aux termes de l'article 2, 2 points pour chaque année d'expérience jusqu'à 4 années.

4. Facteur professionnel

(1) Des points d'appréciation sont attribués en fonction des possibilités d'emploi au Canada dans la profession_:

a) à l'égard de laquelle le requérant satisfait aux conditions d'accès, pour le Canada, établies dans la Classification nationale des professions;

b) pour laquelle le requérant a exercé un nombre substantiel des fonctions principales établies dans la Classification nationale des professions, don't les fonctions essentielles;

c) que le requérant est prêt à exercer au Canada.

9.Personnalité

Des points d'appréciation sont attribués au requérant au cours d'une entrevue qui permettra de déterminer si lui

suitability of the person and his dependants to become successfully established in Canada based on the person's adaptability, motivation, initiative, resourcefulness and other similar qualities.

(Underlining added.)

et les personnes à sa charge sont en mesure de réussir leur installation au Canada, d'après la faculté d'adaptation du requérant, sa motivation, son esprit d'initiative, son ingéniosité et autres qualités semblables.

THE NOC DESCRIPTION OF A CIVIL ENGINEER

        The relevant portions of the description of a civil engineer in the NOC are:

2131 Civil Engineers

Civil engineers plan, design, develop and manage projects for the construction or repair of buildings, earth structures, powerhouses, roads, airports, railways, rapid transit facilities, bridges, tunnels, canals, dams, ports and coastal installations and systems related to highway and transportation services, water distribution and sanitation. Civil engineers may also specialize in foundation analysis, building and structural inspection, surveying, geomatics and municipal planning. Civil engineers are employed by engineering consulting companies, in all levels of government, by construction firms and in many other industries, or they may be self-employed.

[...]

Main duties

Civil engineers perform some or all of the following duties:

• ·                                                   Confer with clients and other members of the                  engineering team and conduct research to determine project requirements
• ·                         Plan and design major civil projects such as buildings, roads, bridges, dams, water and waste management systems and structural steel fabrications
• ·                         Develop construction specifications and procedures

2131 Ingénieurs civils/ingénieures civiles

Les ingénieurs civils planifient, conçoivent, élaborent et dirigent des projets de construction ou de réparation de bâtiments, de structures terrestres, de centrales électriques, de routes, d'aéroports, de chemins de fer, de réseaux de transport rapide, de ponts, de tunnels, de canaux, de barrages, d'installations portuaires et côtières ainsi que de systèmes liés aux services routiers et de transport, aux services de distribution d'eau et aux services sanitaires. Les ingénieurs civils peuvent également se spécialiser dans l'analyse des fondations, dans l'inspection des bâtiments et des charpentes, dans l'arpentage, dans la géomatique et dans la planification municipale. Ils travaillent dans des firmes d'ingénieurs-conseils, à tous les échelons du gouvernement, dans des entreprises de construction et dans de nombreux autres secteurs industriels, ou ils peuvent être des travailleurs autonomes.

[...]

Fonctions principales

Les ingénieurs civils exercent une partie ou l'ensemble des fonctions suivantes :

• ·                                                   Evaluate and recommend appropriate building              and construction materials
• ·                                                   Interpret, review and approve survey and civil              design work
• ·                         Conduct field services for civil works
• ·                         Ensure construction plans meet guidelines and specifications of building codes and other regulations
• ·                         Establish and monitor construction work schedules
• ·                         Conduct feasibility studies, economic analyses, municipal and regional traffic studies, environmental impact studies or other investigations
• ·                                                                             Monitor air, water and soil quality and develop             procedures to clean up contaminated sites
• ·                         Conduct technical analyses of survey and field data for development of topographic, soil, hydrological or other information and prepare reports
• ·                         Act as project or site supervisor for land survey or construction work
• ·                         Prepare contract documents and review and evaluate tenders for construction projects
• ·                         Supervise technicians, technologists and other engineers and review and approve designs, calculations and cost estimates.
• ·                         Employment requirements

• ·                         planifier et concevoir de grands ouvrages de génie civil tels que des bâtiments, des routes, des ponts, des barrages, des installations d'alimentation en eau et de gestion des déchets et des ouvrages en acier de construction;
• ·                         élaborer des devis et des méthodes de construction;
• ·                         évaluer divers matériaux de construction et formuler des recommandations à ce sujet;
• ·                         étudier, interpréter et approuver des travaux d'arpentage et des ouvrages de génie civil;
• ·                         fournir des services de génie civil sur le terrain;
• ·                         s'assurer que les plans satisfont aux lignes directrices, aux prescriptions des codes du bâtiment et à d'autres règlements;
• ·                                                   préparer les calendriers d'exécution et voir à ce              qu'ils soient respectés;
• ·                         effectuer des études de faisabilité, des analyses économiques, des études sur la circulation municipale et régionale, des études des répercussions sur l'environnement et autres études;
• ·                         contrôler la qualité de l'air, de l'eau et du sol et élaborer des méthodes de nettoyage des sites contaminés;
• ·                         effectuer des analyses techniques des données de levés afin d'obtenir des renseignements sur la topographie, le sol, l'hydrologie et autres renseignements et rédiger des rapports;
• ·                         agir à titre de chargé de projet ou de chantier pour les travaux d'arpentage ou de construction;
• ·                         préparer des documents contractuels et étudier et évaluer des soumissions concernant des projets de construction;
• ·                         superviser le travail des techniciens, des technologues et autres ingénieurs et examiner et approuver des travaux de conception, des calculs et des estimations de coûts.

ISSUES

[7]         The applicant raises the following two grounds for judicial review in this Court:

(i)                    did the visa officer err in law in requiring the applicant to have performed more than 50%           of the duties described in the NOC list in order to have met the occupation and experience requirements of a civil engineer; and,

(ii)                 did the visa officer render a decision that was unreasonable given the facts before her.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[8]         For the question of law regarding the proper interpretation of Item 4(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Regulations, the standard of review is correctness.

[9]         For the question of whether the visa officer's decision was unreasonable, this is an issue of mixed fact and law. The appropriate standard on issues of mixed fact and law is that of reasonablenesssimplicter. See Canada ( Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748, and Lu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1907 (T.D.).

ANALYSIS

The Question of Law - The Proper Legal Interpretation of Item 4(1)(b) of

Schedule I to the Regulations

[10]       Item 4(1)(b) of the Schedule I to the Regulations allows units of assessment to be awarded in the occupation "in which the applicant has performed a substantial number of the main duties as set out in the NOC, including the essential ones [...]". In cross-examination, the visa officer stated that she equated the meaning of "substantial" to a "majority" of the duties listed in the NOC. However, later in the transcript she qualified this answer. In the formal decision, the visa officer stated that she awarded the applicant no points because the applicant had not performed "a substantial amount of the main duties, including the essential ones, of a civil engineer [...]". The respondent admits that the visa officer found that the applicant had performed four of the thirteen duties of a civil engineer (paragraph 10 in the Respondent's Memorandum of Argument).

[11]       After considering the cross-examination of the visa officer and the decision of the visa officer, I am of the view that the visa officer's interpretation of Item 4(1)(b) was that the applicant was required to have performed a "majority" of the duties of a civil engineer listed in the NOC.

[12]       Paracha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1282 (T.D.) concluded that the visa officer erred by requiring the applicant to have performed all of the specified duties listed in the NOC for a civil engineer in order to receive units of assessment. The Court held that it was an error to hold the applicant to the standard of performing a substantial number of the duties, as this would mean applying the NOC in a manner inconsistent with its terms.

Rather, the Court held that the proper meaning of the words "some or all" in the NOC was that civil engineers will perform more than one of the specified tasks. This approach has been confirmed by subsequent decisions of this Court in Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 422 (T.D.), Bhutto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1411 (T.D.), and Agrawal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 930, a decision of Pinard J. which held that an officer requiring an applicant to have performed a "substantial" number of the duties listed in a job classification was in error.

[13]       I am satisfied that the visa officer required the applicant to have performed a majority of the listed duties for a civil engineer. The officer erred in law by requiring the applicant to have performed a majority of the duties listed in the NOC to be assessed units for experience and occupation as a civil engineer.

[14]       Thirteen "main duties" are listed are in the NOC for civil engineers. However, the NOC states that "civil engineers perform some or all of the following duties". This explains that civil engineers do not necessarily perform every duty listed. The NOC specifically states that civil engineers perform "some or all of the duties". "Some" is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary (8^th Edition) as "an unspecified amount or number", "a considerable amount or number", and "at least a small amount".

[15]       The language in Item 4(1)(b) of Schedule I contains general language which applies to all NOC occupations. This general language is modified by the specific language of the NOC with respect to civil engineers. The Latin maxim of statutory interpretation generalibus specialia derogant (special things derogate from general things) applies. The NOC description of a civil engineer specifically states that "civil engineers perform some or all of the following duties:", and then lists thirteen duties. This specific language qualifies the more general language so that "some or all" takes precedence and supersedes the general language "a substantial number of the main duties as set out in the NOC". "Some" means more than one.

Reasonableness of the Decision

[16]       The second ground of the appeal, which does not need to be considered in view of my decision that the visa officer erred in law, challenges the reasonableness of the decision. In the CAIPS notes, the visa officer writes:

Not sat (satisfied) he has done the work of a civil engineer. Not qualified to work as a professional civil engineer in the USA. In the army, the duties described are also those of a construction manager for which there is no demand in CDA (Canada) [...] Does not have the required experience as a civil engineer as described in NOC 2131. Most of his experience is as a construction manager.

These CAIPS notes are part of the reasons for the visa officer's decision.    The CAIPS notes state that the visa officer decided that the applicant did not work as a civil engineer, but as a construction manager. However, the formal decision of the visa officer dated December 18, 2000 did not say this. Rather the decision said that the applicant had not performed "a substantial amount of the main duties, including the essential ones, of a civil engineer as set out in the NOC". In cross-examination,

the visa officer stated that the applicant performed four of the main duties of a civil engineer, but that this was not sufficient. In reviewing the formal decision, the CAIPS notes, and the cross-examination, there is a major inconsistency with respect to the reason why the applicant was not assessed as a civil engineer. Accordingly, upon a probing examination, the visa officer's decision is set aside because of the inconsistencies among her decision, CAIPS notes and cross-examination. The decision is unreasonable because of the inconsistencies and the lack of clarity.

[17]       For the foregoing reasons, this application for judicial review is allowed.

      (signed) Michael A. Kelen                                                                                                                   _________________________

          JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

October 1, 2002

                        FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

             Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                                              IMM-363-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:              YAHIA MUSTAFA KHALIL A'BED

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                         TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                           TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002   

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN

DATED:                                                    TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2002

APPEARANCES BY:                              Mr. Gregory James

For the Applicant

Mr. Lorne McClenaghan

For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:                 Mr. Gregory James

                                                                      Mamann & Associates

Barristers & Solicitors

74 Victoria Street, Suite 303

Toronto, Ontario      M5C 2A5

For the Applicant             

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

For the Respondent

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                         Date:20021001

                 Docket: IMM-363-01

BETWEEN:

YAHIA MUSTAFA KHALIL A'BED

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                  Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER