Date: 20021128
Docket: IMM-4132-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1238
Vancouver, British Columbia, Thursday, the 28th day of November, 2002
Present: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN
BETWEEN:
JAHANGIR TOIMOOR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] Mr. Jahangir Toimoor (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Pascal Laurin (the "Visa Officer"). In his decision, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for permanent residence in Canada in March 1999. He applied to the Canadian High Commission in Singapore for consideration in the "independent" category and indicated that his intended occupation in Canada was "electrical and electronic engineer". The Applicant was assessed under the National Occupational Classification ("NOC") in the occupation of "Telecommunications Engineer", NOC 2133.0.
[3] The Applicant submitted references from his former and current employers, together with a description of his employment with the Bangladesh Telegraph and Telephone Board ("BTTB"). He attended an interview on July 10, 2001 when he was questioned about his employment duties.
[4] The Visa Officer's refusal letter, dated July 23, 2001, set out the number of assessment units awarded to the Applicant as follows:
Age 10
Occupational Demand 00
Education/Training Factor 17
Experience 00
Arranged Employment 00
Demographic Factor 08
Education 15
English 07
French 00
Bonus (for close relatives in Canada) 00
Personal Suitability 05
Total 62
[5] In the refusal letter, the Visa Officer said that he was not satisfied that the Applicant had accumulated "the required minimum of one year's cumulative experience performing a substantial number of the main duties" of his intended occupation in Canada, as those main duties are identified in the NOC.
[6] Having heard the submissions of counsel for the parties and having read the materials produced, I am of the opinion that this application should be allowed.
[7] In my opinion, the Visa Officer erred by ignoring the evidence before him concerning the Applicant's experience. His conclusion that the Applicant lacked at least one year cumulative experience in his intended occupation of an electrical and electronic engineer is patently unreasonable, in light of the fact that the record shows that the Applicant had worked as an engineer for five years before assuming his current position with BTTB. At the very least, the Visa Officer, if unsure of the work performed by the Applicant in that job, should have asked him about it. Such inquiry would indicate that the Visa Officer had indeed considered the Applicant's work experience between 1989 and 1994. In the absence of evidence about such inquiry, there is a reasonable apprehension that the Visa Officer made his decision without regard to the evidence before him.
[8] The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different Visa Officer for determination in accordance with the law. There is no question for certification arising from this application.
ORDER
The matter is remitted to a different Visa Officer for determination in accordance with the law.
(Sgd.) "E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4132-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAHANGIR TOIMOOR
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ON
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 21, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 28, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Matthew Moyal for Applicant
Ms. Angela Marinos for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Moyal and Moyal for Applicant
Toronto, ON
Morris Rosenberg for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada