Date: 20000918
Docket: IMM-2739-99
BETWEEN:
TOFIQ AZAD AKBAR,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
DENAULT J.
[1] The applicant seeks, by way of judicial review, an order to set aside the decision of the designated immigration officer1 Tan Kwee Luan (the "visa officer") rendered on April 26, 1999 at the Canadian High Commission in Singapore, which refused his application for permanent residence in the independent category as an electrical engineer.
[2] On April 20, 1999, the applicant and his wife attended an interview at the Canadian High Commission in Singapore, pursuant to their application for permanent residence in Canada. By letter dated April 26, 1999, the applicant was advised that his application was refused. The visa officer's refusal was based on the following units of assessment in the occupation of electrical engineer:
| CCDO NOC |
| AGE (42) 10 10 |
| OCCUPATIONAL DEMAND 05 00 |
| SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION 18 -- |
| or EDUCATION/TRAINING FACTOR -- 17 |
| EXPERIENCE 0 0 |
| ARRANGED EMPLOYMENT 0 0 |
| DEMOGRAPHIC FACTOR 8 8 |
| EDUCATION 16 16 |
| ENGLISH 6 6 |
| FRENCH 0 0 |
| BONUS (for close relatives in Canada) -- -- |
| PERSONAL SUITABILITY 03 03 |
| TOTAL 66 60 |
[3] In her decision, the visa officer explained that the applicant did not satisfy her that he had accumulated the required experience as an electrical engineer as defined in both the National Occupational Classification manual ("NOC") and in the Canadian Classification and Dictionary Occupation manual ("CCDO") since his application was submitted before May 1, 1997. This resulted in an award of "0" unit of assessment under the "experience" factor pursuant to the CCDO and of "0" unit of assessment under the "experience" and "demand" factors pursuant to the NOC. The visa officer also indicated that the applicant had been unable to provide sufficient documentation at the interview to prove the relationship to his alleged relative in Canada, and therefore, he was not given any bonus points for close relatives in Canada. The applicant was also awarded only 3 units of assessment with respect to the personal suitability factor.
[4] The applicant submits that the visa officer erred a) in finding that the applicant had no experience as an electrical engineer; by failing: b) to assess him in other related occupations; c) to give proper consideration to his financial assets; d) to take into account the documentary evidence establishing that he had a sister and a brother-in-law living in Ontario; e) in her evaluation of his ability to write English, to give proper consideration to the fact that he had studied in English.
[5] It is trite law that the decisions of visa officers are purely administrative in nature and that the judicial review of such decisions is confined to verify the legality of such decisions and not their merit2.
[6] This Court has also decided in Lim v. M.E.I., (1991), 12 Imm.L.R. 161 at 163 (F.C.A.), that the determination of whether an applicant really is qualified for a certain occupation is a question of pure fact to be determined by the visa officer and may not be interfered with unless it is patently unreasonable.
[7] In a more recent case, Justice Evans of this Court, in Madan v. Canada (M.E.I.), (1999) F.C.J. No. 1198, 1999 Carswell Nat 1480, considered the standard of review to be applied when this Court reviews decisions of these officers made in circumstances such where the visa officer must interpret the provisions of the NOC. He stated:
| [24] In any event, these officers should be afforded considerable discretion in determining whether an applicant satisfies the requirements for a given occupation, including their interpretation of the provisions of the NOC. They have a familiarity with and understanding of this document that is at least equal to, and will often exceed, that of a reviewing port. |
This statement is also valid when one is interpreting the provisions of the CCDO.
[8] Having these principles in mind, I cannot but find reasonable the decision of the visa officer who decided that, in spite of the applicant's impressive c.v., he did not have the experience in ". . . a substantial number of the main duties of [his] indicated intended occupation in Canada . . .". In her decision, the visa officer stated: "based on the information you provided with your application and at your interview, . . . you have not satisfied me that you have accumulated the required minimum of one year's cumulative experience . . ., your job duties [being] confined to electricity distribution, specifically, in the planning and construction of transmission lines, erection of tower and related civil engineering works as well as in inventory control and management of material and staff which are not within the main duties described in the CCDO or NOC". The visa officer had the opportunity to ask questions to the applicant and to hear his explanations, an opportunity this Court does not have, so I cannot but find that it was open to the visa officer to conclude as she did.
[9] With respect to point b) above, as I indicated during the hearing, I am of the view that insofar as the applicant never indicated in his application or never asked during the interview to be assessed in other related occupation, the visa officer had no obligation to make such assessment. In her memorandum, counsel for the applicant argues that the visa officer failed to correctly assess the applicant in occupation such electrical engineer general (CCDO #2144-118), distribution engineer (CCDO #2144-130), electrical systems planning engineer (CCDO #2144-142) and transmission engineer (CCDO #2144-162). Insofar as there is no indication in the file that the applicant was qualified, had the experience and was prepared to pursue these related occupations in Canada, the visa officer's duties did not extend to assess the applicant in such other so-called related occupations.
[10] With respect to point c), i.e. failure to give proper consideration to the applicant's financial assets, it must be pointed out that the visa officer did in fact consider the applicant's liquid assets as well as his agricultural land and two residential plots but found that these properties would be difficult to dispose of. It was open to the visa officer to conclude as she did.
[11] With respect to point d), insofar as the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to prove his relationship with alleged relatives in Canada, it was open to the visa officer to refuse to award any bonus units of assessment. There was confusing evidence in that respect, and even though the applicant was advised before the interview to produce evidence of this parental relationship, he failed to do so.
[12] With respect to point e), i.e. the applicant's language abilities, the visa officer was satisfied that the applicant could speak and read English fluently but found that he could write "with some difficulty". Considering the results of the written English test he was subjected to, (Tribunal's Record, p. 41), the visa officer's assessment is not so unreasonable as to warrant this Court's intervention.
[13] In conclusion, I find no basis to set aside the visa officer's decision and the application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. There is no question of general importance.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is dismissed.
__________________________
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
September 18, 2000
__________________1 For the purposes of this judgment, she will be designated as a visa officer.