Date: 20020528
Docket: IMM-4866-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 605
BETWEEN:
ZHANG QUI PING
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
(Oral Reasons Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario, on May 23, 2002, as edited)
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision dated August 17, 2000, of the visa officer wherein the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.
[2] The issue is whether or not the officer erred in determining that the applicant did not comply with the NOC employment requirements.
[3] The applicant applied for permanent residence to Canada in March 1999 and was interviewed on August 17, 2000. The applicant indicated an intention to work as an Editor at a Chinese newspaper.
[4] The NOC employment requirements for Editor (5122) read as follows:
1. A bachelor's degree in journalism, English, French or a related discipline is usually required.
2. Several years of experience in journalism, writing, publishing or a related field are usually required.
[5] In assessing the points to be provided the applicant pursuant to this category the officer considered whether the applicant had one of the listed degrees or whether she had a related degree. The officer was not satisfied that a degree in Chinese and Chinese literature, with five courses related to editing and one course in journalism, was a degree related to journalism, English or French. The officer also considered whether there were any other factors such as educational record and work experience which compensated for her lack of a degree. The officer determined that there was not and I will analyse this finding in further detail. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant met the requisite employment requirements and awarded her 0 points for Occupational Factor.
[6] With respect to the applicant's work experience, the CAIPS notes indicated:
PI has been employed as an editor since 1989 with the ChangChun Evening Post. PI stated that she was employed as the Editor for the Economic News from 1989-1992 and her duties including assigning tasks to reports, editing articles related to the Economic News and also designing page layouts. From 1992-1998, PI worked as the front page editor and after 1998 PI is the editor for literature supplement. PI stated her duties now are also in editing however for a different section of the newspaper. I am satisfied that PI does some of the duties of an editor as defined in NOC. 8 points awarded for experience.
[7] She later stated in the CAIPS notes:
PI also does not have several years of experience in journalism, writing, publishing or a related field. PI started as an editor with no other work experience.
[8] The standard of review is set out by Justice Malone in Jang v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration F.C.A. 2001 No. 312 where he states at paragraph 12 that:
An application to be admitted to Canada as an immigrant gives rise to a discretionary decision on the part of a visa officer, which is required to be made on the basis of specific statutory criteria. Where that statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, courts should not interfere (Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada et al [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at pages 7-8; To v.Canada (M.E.I.) [1996] F.C.J. No. 696 (F.C.A.).
[9] In my view the visa officer erred in ignoring the experience of the applicant as an editor when considering whether the applicant's experience in a related field, editing, overcame the applicant's failure to meet the usual education requirements. The applicant had been awarded 8 points for experience under the NOC since she had performed some of the duties of an editor.
[10] When the visa officer turned her mind to whether the applicant's experience overcame the applicant's failure to meet the usual educational requirements she stated in the CAIPS notes as set out above that the applicant did "not have several years of experience in journalism, writing, publishing or a related field." However the applicant had several years experience as an editor which is a related field. The visa officer did not analyse whether this experience as an editor was sufficient to overcome the applicant's inability to meet the usual education requirements. This is a reviewable error since the visa officer has not answered an essential question in this case. As stated by Madam Justice Reed in Hara v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration 26 August 1999, IMM-6307-98, the visa officer may also consider whether "the applicant will be able to hold employment in the intended occupation despite the fact that the ‘usual' educational requirements are not present."
[11] The application for judicial review is granted. The decision of the visa officer dated August 17, 2000, is quashed. The matter is returned to a different visa officer for redetermination.
"W.P. McKeown"
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 28, 2002
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4866-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: Zhang Qui Ping and the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 23, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MCKEOWN
APPEARANCES:
Mr. M. Max Chaudhary FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Neeta Logsetty FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Chaudhayr Law Offices FOR APPLICANT
Barrister and Solicitor
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada