Date: 20000810
Docket: IMM-3655-99
BETWEEN:
WASIEM SHEZAD
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of visa officer, Gregory Chubak, dated June 7, 1999 in which the applicant"s application for permanent residence in Canada was refused.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. On or about March 27, 1998, the applicant submitted an application for permanent residence in the independent category, listing his wife as a dependent. On the form, the applicant indicated that his intended occupation was personnel and recruitment officer (NOC 1223).
[3] Since 1993 the applicant has been employed as a Procurement Officer at the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. His various duties include among others, to initiate correspondence with various government and non-government organizations, to implement schedules and plan priorities, to maintain records and supervise filing, and to purchase equipment, supplies, materials, utilities and services. In addition, his experience certificate indicates that he also performs the job of Human Resource Co-ordinator.1 In this capacity, his duties include among others, to develop and maintain staff inventory, to develop plans and establish procedures for the selection/hiring of staff and to prepare a short term on job training program for the staff.2
[4] The applicant completed high school followed by a two-year degree program in general studies. He subsequently obtained a MA in English and a second MA in Political Science. In addition, the applicant has completed four semesters of the Masters of Business Administration Executive Program at the University of Arid Agriculture in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. It is unclear whether or not the applicant has actually completed the program.
[5] The applicant attended an interview on June 4, 1999.
[6] By letter dated June 7, 1999, the visa officer refused the applicant"s application for permanent residence. In the decision the visa officer stated that he assessed the applicant in the occupations of personnel and recruitment officer (NOC1223) and purchasing officer (NOC 1225). However, the visa officer determined that the applicant did "not meet the employment requirements to undertake either occupation in Canada." The visa officer also assessed the applicant in the occupation of administrative clerk (NOC 1431). However, as the applicant received only 57 of the required 70 units of assessment, the visa officer refused the application.
[7] The employment requirements under the NOC system for the applicant"s intended occupations prescribe that a university degree in a specific field is usually required.
[8] In Hara v.Canada (M.C.I.),3 Madam Justice Reed discusses the interpretation of the term "usually required":
| [...] it may be an error to state that "is usually required" means that the educational requirement must be met, except where there are significant and substantial factors that persuade the visa officer that the occupational requirements can be overcome. That may be too rigid an interpretation. Nevertheless, there must be some persuasive reason for thinking that the applicant will be able to hold employment in the intended occupation despite the fact that the "usual" educational qualifications are not present.4 |
[9] In the present case, the visa officer concluded that the applicant"s education did not meet the minimum employment requirements as provided by the NOC system for both his intended occupations. More specifically, in his CAIPS notes the visa officer stated that the applicant lacked the necessary training (education) required for his intended occupations:
| In his current capacity PI performs sufficient of the duties and responsibilities per NOC 1225. However, as above, PI does not have the training and entry requirements for this occ"n. PI performs a number of personnel functions which have a degree of complementarity with NOC 1223. Again however, as above, PI does not have the training and entry requirements for this occ"n. 5 |
[10] The visa officer"s affidavit reveals that he did not believe that there were significant or substantial factors to overcome the employment requirements thus following the analysis of Volume 1 of the National Occupation Classification in regard to the interpretation of the terms "usually required". In fact, the visa officer emphasized that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was capable of working as either a personnel or purchasing officer in Canada by obtaining ancillary training or knowledge in these occupations.
[11] I am of the view that given the applicant"s duties as Human Resource Co-ordinator at the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission since 1993, and given the courses pursued at the MBA level, that the visa officer"s assessment of the Applicant"s work experience and education was unreasonable. Indeed, the visa officer indicated in his CAIPS notes cited above, that the applicant "performs sufficient duties and responsibilities" of a purchasing agent and "performs a number of personnel functions which have a degree of complementarity" with the occupation of a personnel and recruitment officer. I therefore find it difficult to reconcile the visa officer"s finding that the applicant has not demonstrated that he was capable of working as a personnel officer or a purchasing officer in Canada by obtaining ancillary training or knowledge in these occupations when his CAIPS notes acknowledge the applicant"s experience in both of his intended occupations. In such circumstances, I am satisfied that the visa officer made an unreasonable assessment of the applicant"s employment requirements.
CONCLUSION
[12] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is granted and the matter is sent back for redetermination by a different visa officer in accordance with these reasons.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
J.F.C.C.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
August 10, 2000.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-3655-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: WASIEM SHEZAD |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: TREMBLAY-LAMER J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 10, 2000
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Harvey Savage |
| For the Applicant |
| Ms. Andrea Horton |
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Harvey Savage |
| Barrister & Solicitor |
| 393 University Avenue, Suite 2000 |
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M5G 1E6 |
| For the Applicants |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000810
Docket: IMM-3655-99
BETWEEN:
| WASIEM SHEZAD |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |
__________________