Date: 20030602
Docket: IMM-4218-01
Citation: 2003 FCT 693
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, this 2nd day of June 2003
Present: The Honourable Justice Dolores M. Hansen
BETWEEN:
JULIA EDOSHINA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Julia Edoshina (the "applicant") seeks judicial review of the August 6, 2002 decision of a visa officer refusing her application for permanent residence in Canada. She applied under the Independent-Skilled Worker category as a translator, National Occupational Classification ("NOC") 5125.1, or interpreter, NOC 5125.3.
[2] The applicant is a 31-year old citizen of Russia. She has one year of experience as an interpreter and translator for a large multinational corporation. She also has a diploma in teaching the English and German languages from the Pomorsky International Teachers Training University and a Master's degree from the Moscow International School of Business. As part of her teacher's training, the applicant completed the following courses specifically relevant to the issues on this application:
Pedagogies
Methods of Teaching of Foreign Languages
Modern Russian Language
Introduction to Linguistics
General Linguistics
Latin Language
Practical Course of the Main Foreign Language:
a) Practice of the Oral and Written Speech
b) Practical Grammar
Theoretical Course of the Main Foreign Language:
a) Language History
b) Theory of Phonetics
c) Theory of grammar
d) Lexicology
e) Stylistics
History of English-speaking countries
Literature of English speaking countries
Practical course of the second foreign language
[3] In the August 6, 2001 refusal letter, the visa officer states:
According to NOC employment requirements for translators: A bachelor's degree in translation or a related discipline is required, and specialization translation at the graduate level is usually required. According to the NOC requirements for interpreters: A bachelor's degree in translation or a related discipline is required, and specialization translation at the graduate level is usually required. From the documents you have provided in support of your application, I note that you studied at the Pomorsky International Teacher's Training University and qualified as a teacher of English and German languages. I have reviewed your university school transcripts for this program and note that out of 25 courses listed, there was not one course in translation or interpretation. After completing this program, you attended the Moscow International School of Business. I have reviewed the course transcripts from this program and note that out of 57 courses listed, none are in translation or interpretation.
You have provided no evidence of specialized training as a translator or interpreter at the undergraduate levels. After a careful review of the education and work experience documents you have provided, I am not satisfied that you would be able to overcome the NOC employment requirements which Canadian employers usually require. You receive 0 units for the Occupational and Experience factors because you do not meet the NOC employment requirements for your intended occupation.
[4] For the occupation of translator, the applicant was awarded 60 units of assessment. Under the interpreter occupation, she received 57 units of assessment.
[5] The applicant raises the following issue:
Did the visa officer err in her consideration of the applicant's educational qualifications in a "related discipline"?
[6] The applicant submits the visa officer applied too narrow a test in her assessment of the applicant's educational qualifications. According to the NOC, the employment requirement for translators and interpreters is:
A bachelors degree in translation or a related discipline is required and specialization in translation, interpretation and terminology at the graduate level is usually required.
[7] The applicant contends the visa officer's observation that "[y]ou have provided no evidence of specialized training as a translator or interpreter at the undergraduate levels" evidences an erroneous interpretation of "or a related discipline" in the NOC requirement. According to the applicant, the visa officer, in effect, was looking for an equivalent or identical degree. The applicant also adds that this issue has come before the Court on three earlier occasions and in each instance the Court has adopted the position put forward by the applicant. The applicant relies on Chen v. MCI (2000) 7 Imm.L.R. (3d) 206 (FCTD), Gao v. MCI (2000) 184 F.T.R. 300 (FCTD), and Xiao v. MCI (1999) 4 Imm.L.R. (3d) 302 (FCTD).
[8] The applicant argues the proper approach to determine whether a degree in a related discipline meets the NOC requirement was articulated by Blais J. in Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 613 at paragraph 18. He stated:
In determining if the English degree is connected by reason of an established or discoverable relationship to a translation degree, the visa officer must necessarily determine if the courses taken are somehow connected to the occupation of interpreter or translator. This is not to say that the related discipline must be the equivalent of the translation field, or that the courses taken must all be the same. There must be however, a nexus between the translation degree and the applicant's degree sufficient enough to satisfy the employment requirements in Canada.
[9] The applicant maintains the term "or a related discipline" must be given some meaning. When assessing whether a degree is a degree in a related discipline, the visa officer should consider two factors, namely:
1) What is the related degree designed to train the individual to do?
2) Does the degree provide training that is applicable or useful for the occupation?
[10] In the present case, the applicant states that her undergraduate degree is a degree that qualifies her to teach languages. Further, the ability and skills associated with teaching others how to express themselves in another language are related to the ability and skills associated with interpreting and translating. Accordingly, the requisite nexus between the NOC requirement and the applicant's degree has been met.
[11] The respondent submits the CAIPS notes and the refusal letter show that the visa officer recognized the applicant could meet the NOC requirement with a degree in a related discipline. The visa officer considered the courses taken by the applicant in her undergraduate and graduate degrees and determined that the substance of her degrees were such that they were not degrees in a related discipline to translation or interpretation.
[12] The respondent also adds that a translation degree would include many courses in translation ranging from the basic to the advanced level as well as specialized training in terminology associated with particular fields. Additionally, there are many different types of interpretation such as simultaneous, consecutive and whispering each requiring specialized training.
[13] In the present case, the respondent submits that it was open to the visa officer to find that the applicant's degree did not qualify. The respondent characterizes the finding as a factual one and states that it should not be interfered with on judicial review.
[14] The respondent argues that the Chen, supra, and Xiao, supra, on which the applicant relies do not assist her. These decisions, in the respondent's view, turned on the question of how the officer applied the phrase "is usually required" in the NOC requirement for translators and interpreters. In both of these cases, the Court found that the officer erred by interpreting this phrase in a way that made the completion of graduate work mandatory.
[15] The respondent also points to paragraph 18 in Gao, supra, where Blais J. states:
The visa officer had an obligation to determine if the English degree was a related discipline. Although the applicant's transcript was before the visa officer, there was no evidence that she turned her mind to determine if the courses taken within the degree could qualify as a related discipline. In my opinion, the visa officer misinterpreted the NOC requirement and adopted a more stringent approach. In doing so, she erred.
The respondent maintains that, in the present case, the visa officer specifically considered the courses taken by the applicant in reaching her decision.
[16] Finally, the respondent relies on the decision in Chen v. MCI (2000) FCJ No. 613 and , in particular, on the following observation by Blais J. at paragraph 19:
In the present case, since the applicant did not have a bachelor's degree in translation, the visa officer turned her mind to determine whether the applicant's English degree is a related discipline. In order to do so, she examined the courses taken. The visa officer noted only two courses taken were related to the field of translation, and in her opinion, they were not sufficient to make the English degree a related discipline to translation.
[17] I accept the applicant's submission that the question is whether there is a sufficient link between the applicant's degree in translation to satisfy the NOC employment requirement. I also accept that when scrutinizing the courses taken by the applicant one of the considerations is what does the degree in the "related discipline" train the individual to do.
[18] However, I do not accept the applicant's formulation of the second question. In my opinion, the question is not whether the degree provides training that is applicable or useful, it is whether the knowledge and skills acquired during the course of study sufficiently equip the individual to perform the duties in the intended occupation.
[19] While qualification to teach a foreign language reflects a knowledge of the foreign language, it does not necessarily reflect the level of linguistic proficiency required of a translator or interpreter. Nor does the acquisition of pedagogical skills equate to the acquisition of those specialized skills of a translator or an interpreter.
[20] In the present case, the visa officer considered the courses taken by the applicant. Having regard to the courses taken by the applicant, I am unable to conclude that the visa officer erred in reaching her decision.
[21] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party submitted a question for certification.
ORDER
THIS COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No question will be certified.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4218-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Julia Edoshina v. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: June 20, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER : The Honourable Justice Dolores M. Hansen
DATED: June 2, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Ian Goldman FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Pauline Anthoine FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Goldman & Associates
Vancouver , British Columbia FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR RESPONDENT