Date: 20000906
Docket: IMM-3979-99
Between :
MING LIU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of Jean-Stéphane Couture, a visa officer at the Canadian Embassy in Beijing, People's Republic of China, dated June 21, 1999, holding that she did not meet the requirements for permanent residence in Canada.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of China. On or about April 18, 1996, she submitted an application for permanent residence in the independent category, listing her husband and child as dependants. On her application, the applicant listed her intended occupation as Book Editor, CCDO 3351110.
[3] In support of her application, the applicant submitted, among other things:
| - certificates of schooling indicating that she studied the English language as well as literature in foreign languages at Zhengzhou University, from which she obtained a Bachelor of Arts in 1989 and a Masters of Arts in July 1992; and, |
| - a letter, dated June 26, 1996, from Henan People's Publishing House, stating that the applicant was an editor with this company since 1992. The letter also listed her duties. |
[4] In a letter dated June 21, 1999, the visa officer refused the applicant's application for permanent residence. In his decision, although having awarded three units of assessment for occupational demand, he awarded the applicant zero units for experience. In my view, given the circumstances, it was not open to the visa officer to do so. Generally, when a visa officer awards an applicant units of assessment under the occupational factor/demand, it is inferred that the visa officer concluded that the applicant meets the NOC/CCDO qualifications for employment including educational requirements and experience (see, for example, Dauz v. M.C.I. (August 20, 1999), IMM-3402-98 (F.C.T.D.) and Osman v. M.C.I. (January 28, 2000), IMM-1406-99 (F.C.T.D.)).
[5] Furthermore, this award by the visa officer was made despite the letter submitted by the Henan People's Publishing House stating that during her employment with this company (approximately four years at the time of her application), the applicant's duties included:
| 1. to choose valuable subjects and corresponding writers of the books she manages to publish on the basis of her own market survey and her specialities. |
| 2. to read and edit manuscripts, including to correct errors in spelling, grammar or translating etc. |
| 3. to help our fine art designers to plan layouts and formats of books when they have difficulty in learning the English contents of the books. |
[6] As there is no affidavit from the visa officer and as there is no mention of that letter either in his decision or in his notes, I consider that the visa officer clearly ignored highly relevant evidence of the applicant's work experience as a book editor.
[7] In the circumstances, the visa officer's conclusion with respect to experience is perverse and vitiates his entire decision.
[8] Consequently, the application for judicial review is allowed, the visa officer's decision dated June 21, 1999, determining that the applicant did not meet the requirements for permanent residence in Canada, is set aside and the matter referred back for reconsideration by a different visa officer.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 6, 2000