Date : 19971031
Docket : IMM-859-97
BETWEEN:
ABDUL SALAM HAMZA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
McGILLIS, J.
[1] The applicant has challenged the decision of a visa officer refusing his application for permanent resident status in the independent applicant category.
[2] The principal question to be determined on this application for judicial review is whether the visa officer breached the duty of fairness by failing to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to her concerns about his occupation or the nature of his work experience.
[3] In his application for permanent residence ("application"), the applicant indicated that his current occupation was "Senior Operations Engineer" with an oil and gas processing company in Libya. He further indicated that, in his previous employment, he had worked with an oil company as a "Chief Production Engineer" and as a "Production Senior Engineer". In the letter accompanying the application, the applicant's representative requested the visa officer to assess the applicant in the occupation "petroleum engineer". In support of his application, the applicant submitted evidence indicating that he graduated from Baghdad University with a degree in petroleum engineering. He also submitted a document entitled "Informal Assessment of Qualifications for Engineers", prepared by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, indicating that his qualifications as an engineer appeared to be acceptable for immigration purposes, subject to the completion of registration examinations.
[4] The visa officer conducted an interview with the applicant. In her notes of the interview, the visa officer indicated, among other things, that the applicant worked as an operation engineer at an oil and gas processing company, measuring the quantity of oil and gas to be transported by ship. As an operation engineer, he acted as a "troubleshooter", identifying problems which would have to be repaired by an electrical or mechanical engineer, as the case may be. In his previous position with another oil processing company, he was the chief production engineer. As part of his responsibilities, he supervised two senior engineers and was in charge of the technical and administrative work for one of the production units. Following her outline of his work experience, the visa officer stated the following in her notes:
| Not sure he has work experience of engineer. |
|
| Need to determine occupation. Not sure exactly what operation engineer translates to-it is not listed in CCDO. |
|
[5] The visa officer did not indicate to the applicant that she had concerns about the nature of his work experience or his occupation, or that she required any further details from him in order to assist her in making her decision.
[6] In her decision on October 14, 1996, the visa officer concluded, among other things, that the applicant was not entitled to the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis that he had received zero units of assessment for the factor of occupational demand. She indicated that she had assessed him in the occupation of "Foreman, Distilling, Subliming and Carbonizing Occupations, Chemicals and related materials, CCDO 8160118".
[7] By letter dated November 11, 1996, the applicant's representative requested a reconsideration of the decision on the basis that the applicant intended to work in Canada as a petroleum engineer, and not in the occupation referred to by the visa officer in her decision.
[8] By letter dated November 13, 1996, the visa officer stated as follows:
| This applicant stated on his application form that his intended occupation in Canada was "Operations Engineer". Since this occupation does not exist within the CCDO it was necessary to determine the applicant's actual occupation based on his description of his work experience. It was determined after careful review that while Mr. Hamze's [sic] degree is a "Bachelor of Oil Engineering" he does not have the necessary work experience to be considered as a Petroleum Engineer. The occupation selected was that which most closely resembled the work he has actually done. Other options were also considered but none would have resulted in a successful application. |
|
[9] Following my review of all of the evidence in the record, I have concluded that the visa officer breached the duty of fairness by failing to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond to her concerns about his occupation and the nature of his work experience, particularly given the ample evidence in the record to indicate that he was an engineer and had worked in such a capacity for two oil companies. In view of the evidence in the record, it is surprising, to say the least, that the visa officer assessed the applicant on the basis of an occupation that appears to be unrelated to engineering.
[10] The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the visa officer is quashed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for reconsideration and redetermination. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
October 31, 1997
Email this Content