Date: 20001109
Docket: IMM-3110-99
Between :
MANPREET KAUR CHANDPURI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of P. Roumbos, Third Secretary (Immigration) at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, dated May 6, 1999, determining that she did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada in the Independent category.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of India. She submitted her application for permanent residence under the Independent category and claims that she sought to be assessed under three categories: Psychologist General (CCDO #2315-110, NOC #4151), Psychologist Counselling (CCDO 2315-144) or Counsellor General (CCDO 2319-114). She was interviewed on April 19, 1999.
[3] The applicant was informed by letter dated May 6, 1999, that she had received insufficient units of assessment for immigration to Canada. She had only been assessed under the Psychologist General category (CCDO #2315-110, NOC #4151). The visa officer awarded zero units of assessment for the experience component. He made this decision on the basis that the applicant did not have any experience in the field assessed and did not have arranged employment that had been certified by a Canada Employment Centre.
[4] The first issue raised by the applicant is whether or not a visa officer is obliged to take into consideration post-interview requests regarding alternate occupations.
[5] The applicant claims that she requested to be considered under the alternate occupation of Counsellor General during the course of the interview. This is denied by the visa officer. Further, the applicant filed in evidence a letter written by her agent, dated April 14, 1999, requesting that she be assessed under this alternate occupation. The respondent claims having only received this letter after the interview, that is, on May 3, 1999.
[6] The visa officer's decision was made on the date of the interview, that is on April 19, 1999. However, formal notification was only completed on May 6, 1999. The visa agent has not provided any explanation for omitting to consider the applicant under this alternate occupation upon receiving the letter dated April 14, 1999 on May 3, 1999, that is, three days prior to the visa officer completing his formal letter of rejection.
[7] I am of the view that it was the officer's duty before disposing of the application to assess the applicant under the alternate occupation of Counsellor General. In Muhammad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (October 9, 1998), IMM-4058-97, this Court was required to determine whether the visa officer had an obligation to consider a letter sent by the applicant's immigration consultants subsequent to the interview. On this question, Evans J. concludes the following at paragraph [23]:
| . . . I am prepared to assume that the visa officer is under a duty to consider material elucidating the experience of the applicant submitted after the interview, but before the decision letter refusing the visa has been written, and that the consultants' letter should therefore have been taken into account when the visa officer was determining whether the applicant was qualified to obtain employment as a computer programmer was inherent in the totality of his work experience. . . . |
[8] Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the visa officer erred in failing to consider the applicant's post-interview request regarding the occupation of Counsellor General. I consequently find it unnecessary to deal with the other issues raised by the applicant.
[9] For the foregoing reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed. The visa officer's decision, dated May 6, 1999, is set aside and the matter referred back for reconsideration by a different visa officer.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 9, 2000