Date: 19980610
Docket: IMM-2727-97
BETWEEN:
SHAFIQUE MOHAMMAD,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
HEALD D.J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Mary M. Keefe, dated May 30, 1997 wherein the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was denied.
FACTS
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who worked for several years in the U.S.A. He applied for permanent residence in Canada on September 26, 1996, as an auditor and was interviewed by Visa Officer Keefe on March 27, 1997. He presented evidence of a two-year Bachelor of Commerce degree (University of the Punjab) in 1986, but was advised that this degree was not equivalent in Canada to an undergraduate university degree (three years of study as a minimum). On this basis, he was awarded 13 units out of a possible 15 units under the factor of education. The applicant went on to submit a "Chartered Accountant Certificate 1991". This certificate did not state that he was a full member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants or of the Institute of Management and Cost Accountants in Pakistan. The Visa Officer observed that he would have to be a full member of one of these institutions to be considered a Chartered Accountant. The Visa Officer further advised the applicant that he had not provided cogent evidence for Specific Vocational Preparation (S.V.P.) for the occupation of auditor.
[3] The applicant also produced letters of reference indicating that he had served as a trainee student with three separate chartered accountants through the years 1987-1991. The Visa Officer quite properly concluded that these letters contradicted the statement on his application form that he was a full-time auditor with those firms.
[4] At the applicant"s request, the Visa Officer allowed him sixty days to submit an assessment of his credentials by the American Auditors Association. No such assessment was submitted within the specified time.
[5] The applicant was awarded 64 units of assessment. Since that assessment was below the 70 unit minimum pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, the applicant was determined to be not qualified as an auditor either under the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations (C.C.D.O.) or the National Occupational Classification (N.O.C.). The Visa Officer also assessed the applicant as a bookkeeper but concluded that he did not meet the qualifications for this occupation either. Accordingly, he was found to be inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act.
ISSUES
| 1. Did the Visa Officer err in law by failing to conduct the assessment required of her pursuant to the Immigration Regulations, 1978 and the C.C.D.O. criteria? |
| 2. Did the Visa Officer breach her duty of fairness? |
ANALYSIS
| 1. Failure to Apply the Immigration Regulations, 1978 and the C.C.D.O. Criteria |
[6] The applicant suggests three reviewable errors on the part of the Visa Officer:
| a) By Assessing 13 Units Instead of the Full 15 Units for Educational Qualifications: |
| The applicant completed a two year degree course in Commerce at the University of the Punjab and obtained a certificate in Chartered Accounting from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Lahore. The Visa Officer concluded that the applicant"s two year degree from Punjab University was not the equivalent of an undergraduate commerce degree in Canada (minimum of three years). To answer the concerns of the Visa Officer, the applicant agreed to submit further documentation from the American Auditors Association to support his qualifications. This material was not received within the time allowed. It was not before the Visa Officer at the time she made her determination. The fact that this material arrived at a later date after the Visa Officer made her decision does not assist the applicant in any way. |
| b) In Holding That the Applicant is not Eligible to be Employed as an Auditor When he Has Worked in That Capacity for Ten Years |
| I do not agree with this submission. The Visa Officer was not entitled to ignore the formal requirements for the position of auditor.1 The Visa Officer concluded that the applicant"s work experience did not satisfy the requirements for an auditor. She so advised the applicant at his interview and gave him the opportunity to respond. She did not find his letters of reference to be credible. She also concluded that his duties with his former employers did not correspond to the requirements set out in the C.C.D.O. In my view, such a conclusion was reasonably open to her on this record. |
| c) In Assessing the Applicant as a Bookkeeper and Not as an Auditor |
| The applicant submits that had the Visa Officer assessed the applicant as an auditor pursuant to the Regulations and the C.C.D.O., he would have received 10 points for the S.V.P. factor, 3 points for occupational demand, and 8 points for the experience factor, amounting to a total of 77 units. |
[7] I do not agree with this interpretation of the decision of the Visa Officer. It seems clear that the Visa Officer assessed the applicant as an Auditor CCDO 1171-162, his desired occupation, and then also assessed him on the basis of a Bookkeeper CCDO 4131-114. She did not substitute one for the other. In Li v. Canada (M.E.I.)2, it was held that the Visa Officer had
| ... a clear responsibility... to assess alternate occupations inherent in the applicant"s work experience where the applicant seeks such an assessment by designating it in his application. |
In the case at bar, Visa Officer Keefe assessed the applicant under his designated occupation of auditor and then proceeded to also consider the alternative occupation of Bookkeeper. In my view, this was a perfectly proper procedure.
| 2. Duty of Fairness |
[8] I see no merit in this submission. There is no general duty imposed upon a Visa Officer to aid an applicant in making his case. Likewise, there is no specific duty to inform an applicant before rendering a decision that he has not achieved the required units of assessment.3
[9] Indeed, in this case, the Visa Officer granted the applicant sixty days within which to submit an informal report on his academic credentials. The applicant did not avail himself of this opportunity. In such circumstances, no fault or blame can be ascribed to the Visa Officer.
CONCLUSION
[10] Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, the within application for judicial review is dismissed.
CERTIFICATION
[11] Neither counsel suggested the certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree that this is not a case for certification.
Darrel V. Heald
Deputy Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 10, 1998
__________________1 Compare Ou v. Canada (M.C.I.) (1997), 39 Imm. L.R. (2d) 233 (F.C.T.D.) per Pinard J.
2 (1990), 31 F.T.R. 290 at 292 (F.C.T.D.) per Jerome A.C.J.
3 Compare Ahmed v. Canada (M.C.I.) (3 July 1997) IMM-2360-96 (F.C.T.D.).