Date: 20040402
Docket: IMM-1993-03
Citation: 2004 FC 519
Toronto, Ontario, April 2nd, 2004
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stenvenson
BETWEEN:
MONA SHAMBHUPAR DAVE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Ms. Dave, the applicant, originally came to Canada as a visitor. She extended her stay as a student and then applied to become a permanent resident under the assisted relative provisions of the former Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. An offer of employment as a business manager at Computer Hardware Services, Guelph, Ontario, was approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). Ms. Dave was called in for an interview and her application was refused.
[2] Ms. Dave did not obtain sufficient units of assessment to quality for immigration as a business manager, National Occupation Classification (NOC) code 0611. Additionally, the visa officer was not satisfied that the family business job offer was really from Ms. Dave's uncle and aunt.
[3] Ms. Dave submits that the visa officer erred in two respects. First, she argues that there was no basis for the finding that she was not a relative. In this respect, it is said that the documents, considered in totality, establish that the sister of Ms. Dave's father and the owner of the business from which the offer emanated are the same person. The second alleged error is that the visa officer erred in concluding that she lacked the necessary experience and qualifications to enable her to do or learn to do the job.
[4] While I am inclined to agree that the visa officer was microscopic and over-zealous in her criticism of the documents, success on the first ground does not result in success on the application. Ms. Dave acknowledged that she must succeed on the second ground to obtain the requested relief.
[5] Having reviewed the contents of the file, including the CAIPS notes and the transcript of the cross examination of the visa officer, I am satisfied that the visa officer's conclusion was reasonably open to her. Ms. Dave's transcripts revealed no courses related to the job that was offered; her computer-related courses were from unregulated schools and showed poor grades; Ms. Dave had apparently volunteered at the business for some time, but she was unable to provide satisfactory explanations for basic aspects of the job such as inventory reconciliation or purchasing; she could not explain how she would advise the business owners regarding expansion; she indicated that, at the business, she would speak on the phone and prepare invoices, but she could not explain how these activities constituted business management.
[6] The visa officer advised Ms. Dave of her concerns and provided the opportunity for Ms. Dave to address them. She failed to do so. Ultimately, the officer was not satisfied that Ms. Dave had sufficient abilities to successfully fill the position. Accordingly, she concluded that Ms. Dave did not meet the requirements of the Act and she refused the application. The visa officer's analysis in this respect is at the heart of the decision, notwithstanding the merits of the argument regarding the documentation. I agree with the respondent that the notes of the officer reflect a situation where it would be very difficult to have found that Ms. Dave was in any way qualified to accept the job offer. After two years of volunteering, it could reasonably be expected that she would have some familiarity with the tasks she would be asked to perform as a business office manager, yet the notes and the reasons indicate that Ms. Dave gave only the vaguest answers.
[7] Having determined that the officer's conclusion was reasonably open to her, my intervention is not warranted and the application for judicial review must be denied. Counsel did not suggest a question for certification. This matter raises no serious issue of general importance.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified.
"Carolyn Layden-Stevenson"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1993-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MONA SHAMBHUPAR DAVE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 31, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: LAYDEN-STEVENSON J.
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Lorne Waldman
FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Angela Marinos
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
WALDMAN & ASSOCIATES
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20040402
Docket: IMM-1993-03
BETWEEN:
MONA SHAMBHUPAR DAVE
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER