Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-1509-96

B E T W E E N :

     WANG HONGJIE

    

     Applicant

     - and -

    

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

    

    

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

    

HEALD D.J.

     This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated March 17, 1996 by Visa Officer Chantal Meagher wherein she denied the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada.

Facts

     The applicant stated, in his evidence before the Visa Officer, that he was a telecommunications specialist. He applied to immigrate to Canada as an independent worker. On March 14, 1996, he was interviewed in English. He stated that he worked as a chief radio operator on ships. He also tuned and checked radio equipment at headquarters. Additionally, he designed databases as well as repairing and designing circuitboards. The Visa Officer said that she did not test the applicant's language capabilities. She added that she was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt in this area. On March 17, 1996, the Officer informed the applicant that his application was rejected because his educational background and work experience more closely resembled that of a radio operator rather than that of a communications specialist.

Issues

l. Did the Visa Officer err in law in reaching an unreasonable decision based on a personal and capricious finding of fact, and, in making this determination, did she ignore relevant evidence?;

2. Did the Visa Officer err in law in failing to fully assess the applicant in his intended occupation?

Analysis

     On this record, I have concluded that the Visa Officer committed a reviewable error. In paragraph 8 of her first affidavit (sworn May 29, 1995) she deposed:

The applicant's work experience, as described in his employment letters and at interviews, more closely resembled that of a technician or radio officer than that of a computer telecommunications specialist; his only experience with computers involved designing a data base. (the emphasis is mine)

     In paragraph 3 of her second affidavit, (sworn September 11, 1996) the Visa Officer deposed that the applicant had said:

...that he had designed a database to keep track of messages on ship; he did not state that he had designed a computer program. (the emphasis is mine)

     At page 58 of the applicant's application record, there appears one of the applicant's letters of reference, a letter from the Jiangxi Ocean Shipping Company Jiujiang Office. This letter was designed to support the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada. The letter reads as follows :

Mr. Wang HongJie entered CHINA OCEAN SHIPPING COMPANY, JIANGXI BRANCH in 1992 and got the Marine officer's Certificate of Competency on 5th, Sep, 1992 and became the chief radio officer on ship. His sepercific work is as follow:

1) design the computer program with Data Base,

2) repair and maintain the radiosets about the R5001,S649,S1250.

3) design the circuitboard for electric equipments

4) contact with the international coastal stations by computer, receiver, transmitter via international telecommunication satellite.

5) install the GPS (globle position system) and radar and so on. (Errors in original)

     The Visa Officer appears to have accepted this and the other references as being credible. Yet in paragraph 3 of her second affidavit (supra), she stated unequivocally that "...he did not state that he had designed a computer program." This statement is clearly in error. He not only stated in his evidence that he had designed a computer program, but, in addition, there was the independent evidence supra from his employer that, in fact, he had designed a computer program. In my view, in so ignoring this important evidence, the Visa Officer committed a reviewable error.

     For these reasons, the Visa Officer's decision is set aside and the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada is remitted to a different Visa Officer for a re-hearing de novo and reassessment of the application according to law.

     Neither counsel suggested certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to the provisions of section 83 of the Immigration Act. I agree with that view. Accordingly no question is certified.

     "Darrel V. Heald D.J."

                     JUDGE

Ottawa, Ontario

January 20, 1997.