Date: 19990902
Docket: IMM-4252-98
BETWEEN:
SYED ABID ALI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LEMIEUX J.:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This judicial review application is in respect of a decision dated June 19, 1997, by Visa Officer M. Dupuis, Second Secretary at the Canadian High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan, (the visa officer) who rejected Syed Abid Ali's (the applicant) for permanent residence in Canada in the intended occupation of Mechanical Engineer, General (CCDO 2147-118).
[2] The applicant, who was not interviewed, was awarded zero (0) points for the experience factor and, as a result, fell within the prohibition in section 11(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, which does not permit the issuance of an immigration visa to applicants who have not been awarded any units of assessment for the experience factor unless the applicant has arranged employment certified by a Canada Employment Centre together with a written statement from the proposed employer. The applicant did not have such arrangements in place.
THE VISA OFFICER'S DECISION
[3] The relevant portions of the visa officer's June 19, 1997 decision are as follows:
| |
Based on the information provided in your application form, you were assessed against the requirements for - Mechanical Engineer General (CCDO 2147-118). Your employment letter shows that you have no experience under this occupation. I could not award you any unit of assessment under the experience factor because you do not perform the following tasks: |
|
| |
"Arrange, supervise, conduct the study of, design, develop or construct machines." |
|
THE ISSUE
[4] Counsel for the applicant argued the visa officer's finding was made without regard to the totality of the evidence"the visa officer, in effect, ignored relevant evidence. The thrust of the argument by counsel for the respondent is that the visa officer when examining the requirements of the CCDO item considered all of the evidence before him and correctly determined the applicant did not have any experience in his intended occupation because he did not meet what the CCDO called for.
THE FACTS
(a) The CCDO description
[5] Mechanical Engineer, General, 2147-118 in the CCDO reads:
| |
Arranges, supervises or conducts the study, design, development, construction, operation and maintenance of machines, mechanisms and processes by performing any combination of the following duties: Prepares designs and cost estimates for machines, mechanisms and industrial processes. Analyzes and solves problems concerned with the utilization of power, machinery, materials and equipment as a result of research and experiments. Collates data and writes reports. Supervises preparation of working drawings and specifications, indicating materials to be used and the method of manufacture. Directs feasibility studies, construction, modification and final testing of prototypes, products or pilot plants. Evaluates installed plants, mechanical processes and products to ensure compliance with specifications and safety standards, and recommends modifications, repairs or maintenance procedures. Supervises and co-ordinates the work of technologists and technicians. |
|
| |
May work as a consultant or collaborate with engineers and scientists in other disciplines and advise clients for a fee. |
|
(b) The applicant's documentation
[6] In his application for permanent residence, the applicant indicated he had received, in 1993, a B.Sc. Engineering (Mechanical) degree from Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology in Dhaka and from September 1993 to date, he worked as a mechanical engineer with the construction and consulting firm of Rasni Ltd.
[7] In support of his application for permanent residence, the applicant filed a letter of reference from Rasni Ltd. dated February 12, 1997, which reads:
| |
This is to certify that Mr. Syed Amir Ali, . . . has been serving as a Mechanical Engineer, since 12th August 1993. He is associated with the job of evaluating tenders of supplying materials, communicating information required by the buyer with the suppliers/manufacturers and follow it up. He is also handling and maintaining the construction equipments of the Company. He is executing his assigned job successfully. We have no objection if he migrates to Canada permanently for a better career. |
|
| |
I wish him all the best in future. |
|
[8] The applicant filed with his application for permanent residence his curriculum vitae which contained a short description of his job. It reads:
| |
Supervise construction equipments & machineries. Also giving instructions for operation and maintenance of the same to the staff. Prepare cost estimate for machineries & solving problems concerned with the following equipments. |
|
| |
Concrete mixer (7-14CFT), vibrator machine, water pump, lathe, milling, shapping, drilling, ball press, bending rollers, rod cutting, tower crane, roof wheyst, winch machine, welding machine etc. |
|
| |
Associated with the job of preparing tender of supplying of machineries to the various organizations. Communicating informations required by the buyer with the supplier/manufacturers & follow it up. For that analysis of the working drawings & specifications is to be done. In charge of 8 nos of technicians. Supervising their jobs and giving them proper instructions. |
|
[9] The certified Tribunal record contained an informal assessment of qualifications for engineers issued by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers dated May 16, 1987. It said that Mr. Ali had "received an acceptable result on your informal assessment of qualifications". It said "this outcome is valuable advice to visa officers. They take it into account when they assess your application for permanent residence in Canada. It does not guarantee they will approve your application, but it will be a factor in your favour".
THE VISA OFFICER'S CAIPS NOTES
[10] The visa officer's CAIPS reads:
| |
The applicant has only one employer, where according to the job letter, he has worked since August 1993 as Mechanical Engineer. The job description in the letter is as follows: |
|
| |
"He is associated with the job of evaluating tenders of supplying materials, communicating information required by the buyer with the suppliers/manufacturers and follow it up. He is also handling and maintaining the construction equipments of the company." |
|
| |
This does not meet the CCDO definition of Mechanical Engineer, which states that a Mechanical Engineer arranges, supervises or conducts the study, design, development, construction, operation and maintenance of machines. |
|
| |
Due to this fact, I could not award the applicant any points in the experience factor. Therefore, I recommend that the application be refused. |
|
| |
I reviewed the file and above notes. The reference letter is pretty much detailed and does not make any reference to the job description of Mechanical Engineer as per CCDO and NOC. Applicant has no experience in R & D. Refused. |
|
CONCLUSION
[11] The resolution of this case, in my view, is not difficult. It is not disputed the visa officer had been provided with the applicant's C.V. which contained a description of what he did at work at Rasni Ltd. " his work experience. This is a most relevant document.
[12] A comparison between the applicant's job functions in his C.V. and the CCDO description of what a Mechanical Engineer General does, on a plain reading, shows a considerable match.
[13] On the record before me, I am compelled to conclude the visa officer ignored"did not take into account" the applicant's C.V. when making his decision. He only considered the letter of reference from the company. The visa officer's CAIPS notes and refusal letter make this clear. A reviewable error has been shown.
[14] Moreover, a consideration of the applicant's C.V. would have flagged in his mind an issue which had to be resolved and would have triggered a duty upon the visa officer to make further inquiries into the applicant's work experience because of the consequences of a finding of no experience.
[15] The argument of counsel for the respondent consisted of a detailed construction and interpretation of CCDO item 2147-118 in an attempt to show that there was no appropriate match-up. As I see it, the visa officer did not base his rejection of the applicant on the proper construction of this CCDO item. He based his decision without regard to relevant evidence which would have impacted on any interpretation of the CCDO item he might consider governed.
DISPOSITION
[16] For all of these reasons, this judicial review application is granted, the decision of the visa officer is quashed, and the matter is remitted for reconsideration by a different visa officer.
"François Lemieux"
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
Email this Content