Date: 20001003
Docket: IMM-2713-99
BETWEEN:
RAVINDER JEET SINGH BEDI
Applicant
-and-
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review by Ravinder Jeet Singh Bedi of the decision of a visa officer dated March 3, 1999, denying his application for permanent residence in the independent class.
[2] By letter dated December 30, 1996, the applicant requested that he be assessed under the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations ("CCDO") Code 1179-154, Sales Promotion Administrator. Two years later, by letter dated December 29, 1998, as the file still had not been processed, he reiterated his earlier request but added that he also wished to be assessed under the new National Occupational Classification ("NOC") system occupation 1122.2, Promotion Specialist.
[3] The CAIPS notes for October 15, 1998 indicate a "paper screening" assessment of the applicant under CCDO 1179-154 and CCDO 5133-130, Sales Representative, Food Products.
[4] The applicant was interviewed on February 17, 1999. By letter dated March 3, 1999, he was informed that his application was denied.
[5] In the letter of refusal, the visa officer stated that he had assessed the applicant against the requirements for Sales Representative, Food Products, CCDO 5133-130 and Farmer, Poultry, Meat Production, CCDO 7113-122. The letter also indicated that he was assessed against the equivalent NOC occupations and provided the units of assessment awarded for each of the selection criteria for each occupational classification system.
[6] The first issue raised by the applicant is whether the visa officer erred in failing to assess the applicant in his intended occupation of Promotion Specialist, NOC 1122.2.
[7] Citing the visa officer's affidavit at paragraph 15, the respondent submits that the visa officer compared the duties performed by the applicant with those described under Sales Promotion Administrator, CCDO 1179-154 and its equivalent NOC 1122.2, Promotion Specialist. He concluded that the applicant had performed insufficient aspects of the duties described under CCDO 1179-154 to be credited with experience in that occupation and its NOC equivalent. Furthermore, the respondent submits that the failure to mention the occupation of Promotion Specialist, NOC 1122.2 does not mean that the visa officer failed to do so. The visa officer attested in his affidavit that he had assessed the applicant under the NOC equivalent.
[8] In Olajuwon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 967 (T.D.), MacKay J. dealt with a similar factual situation. He held at paragraph 9:
| ... The visa officer has a duty to assess an applicant for permanent residence in the occupations for which he requests assessment and the results of that assessment are to be set out, in any letter rejecting the application, for one or more occupations for which the applicant requests assessment. |
[9] In this case, the applicant specifically requested to be assessed under NOC 1122.2, however, no such assessment can be found in the record.
[10] In my view, the visa officer's conclusion that because the applicant did not have the necessary experience in the CCDO occupation, he would not have the experience for the equivalent NOC occupation did not absolve him of the duty to actually make an assessment under the requested NOC occupation. Further, the applicant is entitled to receive the results of the assessment in his intended occupation including the units of assessment awarded for each of the selection criteria. The visa officer's failure in this regard constitutes reviewable error.
[11] The respondent, however, submits that even if the visa officer erred it is "immaterial to the ultimate decision of the visa officer or was a procedural breach which in the circumstances of this case, does not warrant judicial intervention."
[12] In this case, even if, as the applicant submits, he was entitled to 15 units for the educational and training factor ("ETF") under NOC 1122.2, he would still have obtained only a total of 62 units, three less than the 65 required for an assisted relative.
[13] The applicant also submits that the visa officer, having ascertained that the applicant had performed some of the duties of his intended occupations, failed to ascertain "what amount of these duties could be credited to his intended occupations ...". The visa officer found that the applicant's duties as stated at the interview matched one of the duties in the CCDO and NOC occupations and concluded he lacked the requisite experience in his intended occupation. Having reviewed the duties of the two intended occupations found in the CCDO and the NOC, it was reasonably open to the visa officer to reach this conclusion and I find no error in this regard.
[14] In conclusion, although there was a reviewable error in the processing of this application, I am satisfied that it was immaterial to the ultimate decision and does not warrant the Court's intervention.
[15] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
[16] Neither party submitted a question for certification.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 3, 2000