Docket:
IMM-2452-13
Citation: 2014 FC 265
Calgary, Alberta, March 19, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
DALJEET KAUR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
In July 2010, the Applicant made an application for permanent residence
as a member of the skilled worker class, based on an offer of arranged
employment from The Import Connection Ltd. in Fort McMurray. The job was as a
bookkeeper, National Occupation Classification [NOC] 1231.
[2]
Her application included a summary of her previous
work experience listing the work, their periods, employer, occupation, NOC code,
and the main duties of the position. She listed four positions: three in NOC
1431 and only one in NOC 1231, her employment with Cater Mart. She also
provided a letter from Cater Mart dated February 16, 2008, that confirms that
she was employed as a Senior Accountant but it fails to mention any of her
duties or responsibilities.
[3]
In refusing the application, the officer writes:
The employment
document from Cater Mart does not indicate any main duties of your work
experience. Therefore, evidence of parts B and C above [in reference to s. 75(2)(b)
and (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227] cannot be determined. All other occupational experience
indicated on your application was not at the required skill level of 0, A or B.
Subsection 75(3)
states that if a foreign national fails to meet these requirements, the
application shall be refused and no further assessment is required. I am
not satisfied that you meet these requirements. (emphasis added)
[4]
The fundamental issue is whether the officer’s
decision that the Applicant had failed to provide evidence to satisfy the
officer that she had performed skilled work in NOC 1231 was reasonable.
[5]
The Applicant admits that she provided nothing
from her employer that described her duties and responsibilities at Cater Mart,
but submits that the officer either failed to consider her own statement of
duties in her application or found her not to be credible. I am unable to
accept either submission.
[6]
The officer is presumed to have reviewed
everything that was put to him or her. In this case, the decision itself
establishes that the officer did examine the Applicant’s summary of work
experience as the officer noted: “All other occupational experience indicated
on your application was not at the required skill level of 0, A or B.” That
observation could not have been made if the officer had not examined the work
experience section of the application.
[7]
In my view, the Respondent is correct, in
submitting that the issue is one of whether the Applicant met her evidentiary
burden of satisfying the officer that she had, during the period of
employment with Cater Mart, “performed the actions described in the lead
statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational description of the National
Occupation Classification” as is required under paragraph 75(2)(b) of the Regulations.
[8]
The determination of the officer that the
Applicant’s own statements as to her duties and responsibilities did not
satisfy the officer was not made perversely or unreasonably. This Court’s
function is not to reweigh the evidence before the officer.
[9]
There is nothing in the record to suggest that
this officer disbelieved the Applicant’s summary of her duties and
responsibilities; merely that her own statement of duties was insufficient to
meet the burden of submitting sufficient evidence to satisfy the officer.
[10]
For these reasons, the application must be
dismissed.
[11]
Neither party proposed a question for
certification.
Email this Content