Date: 20000511
Docket: IMM-2303-99
BETWEEN:
MOHIUDDIN KHAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MacKAY J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a negative decision of a visa officer based at the Canadian Consulate in Hong Kong. The application was refused at the "paper screening stage", without a personal interview of the applicant who, on the basis of his application, was assessed a total of 52 points of the 55 required for an interview in his case, as an applicant for admission as an assisted relative.
[2] This application concerns one principal issue, i.e., whether the visa officer made a reviewable error in applying the National Occupational Classification (NOC) to the applicant's occupation of "accountant". A secondary, alternative issue, if there was no error in applying the NOC guidelines, is whether the visa officer's decision deprived the applicant of procedural fairness when no opportunity was provided for the applicant to respond to a concern of the officer.
[3] The application for a visa was paper screened on March 4, 1999 and a negative decision communicated to the applicant in a letter dated March 11, 1999, which said, in part:
| I have assessed you in your intended occupation of an Accountant (NOC: 1111.2). However you do not meet the training and entry requirements of an Accountant as specified by the National Occupational Classification. |
| I have therefore assessed you as a Bookkeeper (NOC: 1231.0) an occupation in which you are qualified and experienced. You have thus earned the following units of assessment [these were then set out in detail with a total of 52 units]. |
[4] For the applicant it is urged that the visa officer erred by requiring the training and entry requirements for the occupation of an accountant, as specified by the NOC, to be those there specified for qualification as a "Chartered Accountant", a "Certified General Accountant", or a "Certified Management Accountant". While the visa officer does not expressly so state, that perception of training requirements for an "Accountant" may be inferred from the CAIPS notes and from the affidavit filed by that officer.
[5] It is urged for the applicant that the visa officer erred in his understanding of the NOC requirements for training for an accountant and further, that the training requirements as he read them meant that one must be acceptable as qualified by one of three major accrediting professional bodies of accountants in Canada. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent Minister conceded that the visa officer in this case did read the NOC requirements in this way, but it was submitted that this was a proper and reasonable reading of those requirements.
[6] There were submitted to the Court portions of two documents. The first was an excerpt from the NOC itself, which describes the generic classification "1111 Financial Auditors and Accountants". The second excerpt before the Court was from the NOC Career Handbook, which was described by counsel for the respondent as providing more detailed descriptions of individual job classifications than the NOC itself. The latter excerpt concerned the job classification "1111.2 Accountants", the occupation which the applicant indicated he intended to pursue if admitted to Canada. Both those excerpts set out that within the general classifications, for Financial Auditors and Accountants (1111) and for Accountants (1111.2), the titles of Accountant, Chartered Accountant (C.A.), Certified General Accountant (C.G.A.) and Certified Management Accountant (C.M.A.) may be included. Both excerpts note that "Accountants plan, organize and administer accounting systems for individuals and establishments. Articling students in accounting firms are included in this group". The main duties of accountants are then set out in general terms in the NOC excerpt, and the Handbook sets out main characteristics of occupations within the group Accountants. Both documents also set out "Employment Requirements" which indicate specialized training, accreditation, or licence requirements for Chartered Accountants ("C.A.s"), Certified General Accountants ("C.G.A.'s"), Certified Management Accountants ("C.M.A.'s"), Trustees in Bankruptcy, and the practice of public accounting.
[7] Nothing in the classification 1111 in the NOC or in 1111.2 in the NOC Career Handbook describes particular training requirements for "Accountants", other than those in the professional specialized groups of C.A.'s, C.G.A.'s, or C.M.A.'s. Yet "Accountant" is a separate occupational title classification within both general descriptions. As noted in the letter of rejection there is a separate classification within the NOC for "Bookkeepers" and under that classification the applicant was assessed.
[8] The Court takes notice that there are many people in our society who do work generally described as "Accounting" but who, aside from some introductory training, may not be specially educated or trained, except by experience, for their work. Are they all "Accountants"? The Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th ed. 1990) by its definition would suggest not, for it defines an accountant "as a professional keeper or inspector of accounts". It further defines accountancy "as the profession or duties of an accountant" and it defines profession "as a vocation or calling, esp. one that involves some branch of advanced learning or science". In light of these definitions it cannot be said that the decision in this case was unreasonable insofar as the visa officer reached a conclusion that the NOC classification for "Accountant" required some specialized professional training. The only training specified in the NOC and the Handbook, for Accountants of any sort is that for C.A.s, C.G.A.s and C.M.A.s. In the circumstances, the visa officer's conclusion was not unreasonable that training and entry requirements for an Accountant, under the NOC are those set out for one of the three specialized accrediting groups of Accountants. In so concluding he simply followed the NOC description, in the absence of any other reference to training for accountancy in that description. Whether the description provided for Accountants should be reviewed is an issue not before this Court.
[9] Even if the visa officer were found to have erred in reading the training requirements for the specified professional designations as essential for "Accountants" there is no evidence in the record of the applicant's application for a visa that he had any specialized professional training or education beyond a two-year commerce degree program, which the visa officer specifically, and properly in my view, did not equate with a typical Canadian degree program. Moreover a first degree program could hardly be considered as specialized professional training or education. In the result, the visa officer's conclusion that the applicant did not meet training and entry requirements of an Accountant in itself is not unreasonable even if it were considered as based on a misunderstanding that particular professional training is required for that general occupation.
[10] I turn to the alternative issue raised on behalf of the applicant, that is whether he was denied procedural fairness by the visa officer's determination that he would not be accredited by a professional accrediting body without providing opportunity for the applicant to provide further information or to inquire himself of professional bodies for assessment of his credentials. I am not persuaded that the visa officer's determination deprived the applicant of procedural fairness where there was no evidence of any specialized professional education or training provided by the applicant with his application for a visa.
[11] Where, as here, in response to an application form requesting evidence of education and training programs completed, there is no information provided by the applicant about any specialized training program relating to professional work as an accountant, the visa officer has no obligation to indicate before assessing the application, that he or she is concerned about the lack of such information.
[12] Thus, even if one concludes the visa officer did err in interpreting the NOC qualifications as requiring particular professional training, i.e., for one of the specialized designations of C.A., C.G.A., or C.M.A. as essential for an "Accountant" (NOC: 1111.2), I am not persuaded that the officer erred in his decision that the applicant did not have professional training required for an Accountant, since there was no evidence of professional training or education.
[13] In my opinion, this is not an appropriate case for the Court to intervene to set aside the decision in issue, since in my opinion the basic decision of the visa officer was not unreasonable in the absence of evidence by the applicant of training or education of a professional nature to support the performance of an Accountant's responsibilities as described in the NOC.
[14] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[15] No question for certification pursuant to s-s. 83(1), for consideration by the Court of Appeal, was proposed and no question is certified.
(signed) W. Andrew MacKay
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 11, 2000