Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010403

Docket: IMM-1477-00

Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 282

Ottawa, Ontario, Tuesday the 3rd day of April 2001

PRESENT:      The Honourable Madam Justice Dawson

BETWEEN:

MIN LIN

Applicant

-and-

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

                              REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

DAWSON J.

[1]                Despite the cogent and forceful submissions of counsel for the Minister, I have been persuaded that the visa officer committed a reviewable error in determining that Ms. Lin did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.


[2]                It is an error to award one unit of assessment for occupational demand and zero units of assessment for experience: Dauz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 2 Imm. L.R. (3d) 16 (F.C.T.D.). That error is reviewable if it had a material effect upon the decision, and if there was some evidence before the visa officer of relevant experience: Dauz, supra; Kopyl v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 7 Imm. L.R. (3d) 281 (F.C.T.D.); and Bhogal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1581, IMM-5472-99 (September 28, 2000) (F.C.T.D.).

[3]                In the present case, the main duties of Ms. Lin's intended occupation of Management Consultant are set out in National Occupational Classification ("NOC") 1122 as follows:

Management consultants perform some or all of the following duties:

·                Analyze and provide advice on the managerial methods and organization of a public or private sector establishment

·                Conduct research to determine efficiency and effectiveness of managerial policies and programs

·                Propose improvements to methods, systems and procedures in areas such as operations, human resources and communications

·                Plan the re-organization of the operations of an establishment

·                May supervise contracted researchers or clerical staff.

[4]                In a letter which accompanied her application for permanent residence, Ms. Lin described the major job duties she performed over a four-year period while employed with the Bureau of Geophysical Prospecting International as follows:


·               Seeking out, acquiring, internalizing, grasping and applying information to develop advice on new approaches for management;

·               Planning and supporting in shaping domestic and global strategies. Strategy also includes building strong, long-standing relationships with local companies and multinational oil corporations;

·               Assisting project and marketing departments to assess markets, reshape policies and define more commercially focussed programs and prepare for changes in the global environment;

·               Determining how the organization compares to others in the areas of compensation, benefits, and personnel policies; analyzing executive compensation structure to highlight regulatory issues;

·               Participating in planning, administering and controlling budgets for projects, contracts, equipment and supplies.

[5]    As well, Ms. Lin was enrolled in the Master of Business Administration Program at the University of Saskatchewan.

[6]    In light of the evidence of some relevant experience, and the fact that the effect of the officer's error was to disqualify Ms. Lin from an interview, I have concluded that the visa officer committed a reviewable error so that his decision should be set aside.

[7]    It is therefore unnecessary to consider the other arguments advanced on Ms. Lin's behalf.

[8]    No question was posed for certification by counsel.


JUDGMENT

[9]                IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT:

The decision of the visa officer dated February 15, 2000 is set aside and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for redetermination.

"Eleanor R. Dawson"

                                                                                                   Judge                         

Ottawa, Ontario

April 3, 2001

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.