Date: 19981112
Docket: IMM-5242-97
BETWEEN:
DIDAR SINGH GREWAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROTHSTEIN J.
[1] The applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada as a traffic inspector, motor transportation/rail transportation. He had been employed by the police force in India as a traffic police inspector for 12 years between 1977 and 1996. The visa officer determined that the applicant did not perform the duties of a traffic inspector, motor transportation/rail transportation in accordance with CCDO job description 1176-126. He received 0 units of assessment for experience and did not have arranged employment and therefore, his application for permanent residence was rejected.
[2] The applicant says the visa officer erred in imposing the requirement that the applicant be employed as a traffic inspector for a motor or rail transport company rather than working for the police department as such requirement is not included in CCDO job description 1176-126. There is no such requirement referred to in the visa officer's decision. However, the applicant alleges that the visa officer explained this to him at the interview. The visa officer makes no reference to making such a statement in her affidavit. However, she does describe in some detail the discussion she had with the applicant at his interview. She outlines the duties described by him in some detail. She says she then referred to CCDO 1176-126 and compared the duties he described with the CCDO job description. She concluded that the CCDO 1176-126 job description was essentially dissimilar to the duties performed by the applicant in his position as a police traffic inspector. She describes in some detail why they were dissimilar.
[3] In comparing the applicant's description of his experience with the CCDO job description, she was performing what was required of her. Without a transcript, it is not possible to know precisely what she said to the applicant. However, even if she told him what he alleges, that he did not meet the requirement for immigrating to Canada as he was a police traffic inspector and not a traffic inspector for a motor or rail transport company, that does not mean she set such prior employment as a requirement. The statement cannot be considered out of context. In the context of her interview, and the description he gave to her of his duties as a police traffic inspector, such statement would merely reflect that his experience is not that referred to in CCDO 1176-126. The visa officer did not impose requirements not found in the CCDO job description in this case.
[4] The applicant then alleges that the visa officer was inappropriately skeptical and closed her mind to the employment letters and curriculum vitae (C.V.) submitted by the applicant. However, the visa officer's affidavit says that she discussed the duties described by the applicant with him. The applicant was called in for an interview. I infer that the visa officer must have read and considered the application and the accompanying material including the employment letters and C.V. Otherwise, he would not have been called in.
[5] In going into detail about his duties with him she obtained further details from him as to his experience. She relied on what he told her at the interview. She describes what he told her in some detail. If there was inconsistency between the written information and what he told her, she was entitled to rely on the information from the interview. I do not see that she erred in relying on the information she gathered at the interview. It was an elaboration of what was provided in the written material. That she did not expressly refer to the written material does not mean that she ignored it.
[6] The applicant says the visa officer erred in not assessing him under NOC classification 7222, supervisor, motor transport and other ground transit operations. Counsel agrees that the description is essentially the same as CCDO 1176-126 except that there is a reference to such person being employed by a motor transport and ground transport company as well as by government departments. Counsel says this must include the police department.
[7] Again, the words cannot be taken out of context. Government departments must refer to departments having some type of motor transport or ground transit function. In any event, the visa officer did compare the applicant's experience as a police traffic inspector with the job description in CCDO 1176-126 and did not disqualify him because he had worked for a government department.
[8] The applicant says the visa officer interpreted the job description of a traffic inspector motor transportation/rail transportation too narrowly. However, I think we are looking at a different problem here. What was occurring here, was that the applicant's experience was as a traffic inspector, government services, CCDO 6612-130. However, there was no demand for immigrants with such experience, he was trying to fit himself into CCDO 1176-126 for which there was demand. Unfortunately, the visa officer found that his experience did not so qualify him. In doing so, she did not err.
[9] The judicial review must be dismissed.
Marshall Rothstein
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 16, 1998