Federal Court Decisions

Date: 20001204

Docket: IMM-2188-00

BETWEEN:

     REKHA KRISHNAMURTHY

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:

[1]      This is an application for judicial review against a letter dated March 13, 2000, written by Kristin Louise Erickson (the Visa Officer).

[2]      Mrs. Rekha Krishnamurthy (the Applicant), a citizen of India, made an application for permanent residence in Canada, in the independent category, on or about May 26, 1999.

[3]      In her application, the Applicant stated that her intended occupation in Canada was "Economic Development Officer and Marketing Researcher and Consultant", National Occupational Classification 4163.0.

[4]      On November 8, 1999, the Visa Officer rejected the application in the context of a pre-screening assessment.

[5]      The Visa Officer awarded the Applicant 60 points of assessment for her application but 0 points of assessment for the experience factor. The reasons found in the CAIPS notes are as follows:

Paperscreen ND2 Economic Development Officer and Marketing Researcher and Consultant, 4163.0 NOC, 60 PTS at PPS, 0 PTS for experience. Ref LTRS give positions as "assistant to the marketing manager" and "marketing research assistant", no description of job duties, no suggestion that positions as assistant meet requirements of occupation under NOC. Both positions are in insurance companies, a specialized field. Based on information provided by PA, I am not satisfied she meets the requirements of the stated intended occupation. [...]1

[6]      The Applicant has not challenged this decision before this Court.

[7]      The Visa Officer received a letter dated January 13, 2000 from the Applicant requesting comments on her letter dated December 5, 1999 [request for reconsideration] and the enclosed job descriptions, allegedly sent by the Applicant to the Visa Officer.

[8]      On January 20, 2000, the Visa Officer sent a letter to the Applicant explaining that her letter dated December 5, 1999, was never received and that no job description was enclosed in her letter dated January 13, 2000. The Visa Officer wrote that "[s]ince nothing was received, there is nothing that can be reviewed, or to suggest that a review is in order."2

[9]      The Visa Officer reiterated the reasons why the application was rejected, indicated that she was informed of the refusal and provided full reasons by letter dated November 8, 1999. She also stated that the file would be closed on that date.

[10]      The Applicant sent another letter dated March 6, 2000, with the job descriptions (for the first time) to the Visa Officer requesting again a reconsideration of the decision of November 8, 1999.

[11]      On March 13, 2000, the Visa Officer sent a letter to the Applicant stating once again that the file was closed on November 8, 1999 and that if the Applicant had different or additional information, she could submit a new application along with the new cost recovery fees.

[12]      The Applicant challenges this last letter as being a decision, i.e. a refusal to reopen her file.

[13]      The Respondent submits that the Visa Officer's letter of March 13, 2000 was also one of mere courtesy in which the Visa Officer stated that the application was rejected on November 8, 1999.

[14]      I agree with the Respondent that the Visa Officer's letter dated March 13, 2000 was merely one of courtesy. This letter does not constitute a decision and therefore cannot be challenged by way of judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act.

[15]      The application for judicial review is dismissed.

     "Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

                                     JUDGE

MONTREAL, QUEBEC

December 4, 2000

__________________

¹      Tribunal Record, p. 3.

²      Applicant's Record, p. 16.