Date: 20010912
Docket: IMM-663-01
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1007
BETWEEN:
MARIA CONCEPCION TARROJA
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
A. BACKGROUND
[1] This judicial review application by Maria Conception Tarroja (the "applicant"), a citizen of the Philippines, concerns the refusal letter she received on January 31, 2001, after she had been interviewed by a visa officer in respect to her application for permanent residence in Canada, dated August 24, 1998, in the independent category with her designated intended occupation of "Financial Analyst or Investment Analyst".
[2] Her application for permanent residence was forwarded to the Canadian Embassy in the Philippines by Calgary immigration consultants on August 29, 1998. In their covering letter, the immigration consultants pointed to NOC 1112.0 Financial and Investment Analyst but added "it turned out that there are alternate occupations to her work experience and skills, i.e. Accountant NOC 1111.2 and Financial Manager NOC 1111.0".
[3] The visa officer's refusal letter states that the applicant was assessed in the occupation of Program Officer NOC 4164 and lists the units she was awarded for that occupation, namely, 68 units, short by 2 units of the required 70 units.
[4] The visa officer's refusal letter also states the applicant was also assessed as Financial Analyst, NOC 1112.0. The visa officer, in connection with that application, writes:
Your application could not be approved on this basis because I am not satisfied that your duties match those described in NOC.
[5] For this requested occupation the visa officer's letter did not set out the number of units for each factor.
B. THE GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
[6] The applicant's attack is three-fold urging:
(1) the applicant was not in fact assessed as a Financial Analyst relying on Justice Campbell's decision in Khalaque v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 9 Imm.L.R. (3d) 53;
(2) the visa officer should not have assessed the applicant as a Program Officer (NOC 2.4164) which was not an appropriate alternate occupation flowing from or inherent with her educational qualifications and her actual work experience and relies on Justice Rouleau's decision in Moksud v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001),12 Imm. L.R. (3d) 151. The applicant says the more appropriate classification was that of Economic Development Officer (NOC 4163); and
(3) the visa officer double counted the personal suitability factor with that of the occupational factor relying on Justice Hugessen's decision in B'Ghiel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 45 Imm. L.R. (2d) 198.
C. EVIDENCE ON THIS JUDICIAL REVIEW
[7] Both the applicant and the visa officer filed affidavits but there were no cross-examinations.
[8] The applicant's affidavit concentrated on her educational background and work experience: (1) a 1974 Bachelor's degree of Science in Business Administration with a major in accounting plus several special skills courses; (2) her work from 1979 to 1983 as a Financial Specialist at the Philippine Invention Development Institute; from 1983 to 1986 as a Business Development Officer starting as a Financial Analyst with the KKK - Processing Centre Authority under the Driver's National Program Management Office and from 1986 to April 1996 as Account Manager and Division Chief III, Financial Intermediation Group at the Livelihood Corporation, a Philippine government-owned corporation where she managed the operations of five projects involving project feasibility preparation and project implementation and management; and (3) she states in paragraph 5 she should have been assessed as a Financial Manager (NOC 1111.0).
[9] She also referred to a letter dated January 24, 2001 which she sent to the visa officer after the interview in which she reiterated her experience as a Financial Analyst.
[10] The visa officer's affidavit made these points:
(1) She confirmed her CAIPS notes and her refusal letter that the applicant was not approved as a Financial Analyst NOC 1112.0 because she was not satisfied that the applicant had performed the requisite duties set out in the NOC. The applicant had not collected financial and investment information about companies, stocks and bonds and other investments using daily stock and bond reports, economic forecasts, trading volumes, etc., nor did she examine and analyse financial and investment information including company profiles.
(2) The applicant agreed with her that the description of a financial analyst as it was read aloud to her from the NOC did not reflect her experience.
(3) She informed the applicant that she would be assessed as a Program Officer under NOC 4164.1 and that the applicant agreed with her that the duties she performed reflected those outlined as a Program Officer which included conducting research and implementing or administering programs in areas such as international development.
(4) As to why the applicant was awarded only 3 points for personal suitability, the visa officer explained that the applicant, by her own admission, had not conducted any inquiries regarding employment opportunities in Canada in her intended occupation or in any other occupation. She was unable to describe how she would seek employment and that she was relying solely on her relatives for information, funds and directions. The visa officer added she queried the applicant about how her skills were transferable to Canada, the applicant responded she did not know and that she was quite lost because she did not know anything about employment in Canada.
CONCLUSION
[11] I do not see how this Court can intervene in this application for judicial review in the light of the unqualified statements made by the visa officer in her affidavit, which were not contradicted by the applicant and upon which there was no cross-examination.
[12] The visa officer said that during the interview she explored with the applicant her work experience in her designated occupation of Financial Analyst and that the applicant agreed her work experience did not fit as a Financial Analyst.
[13] In terms of the alternative occupations, the visa officer stated the applicant agreed with her the description in the NOC of Program Officer fits the duties she had performed in the work place.
[14] These fundamental facts are unique and special to the applicant's application for permanent residence. As such, they constitute particular circumstances which distinguish what happened here from Khalaque and Moksud, supra.
[15] As to the final argument of double counting with reliance on B'Ghiel, supra, I agree with counsel for the respondent there was no evidence of double counting and that this case fits within the permissible limits established by Justice Pinard in Abbasi v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1999), 167 F.T.R. 154.
DISPOSITION
[16] For all of these reasons, this judicial review application is dismissed. No certified question arises.
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 12, 2001