Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-5053-99
BETWEEN:
USHA SINGH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
McKEOWN J.
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the immigration officer dated July 22nd, 1999, wherein the Applicant"s application for permanent residence was refused.
[2] The issue is whether the immigration officer erred in law in failing to breakdown the Applicant"s experience and compare it to the NOC requirements for her intended occupation.
[3] The immigration officer"s reasoning is set out in the CAIPS notes of September 26th , 1999:
| Refusal based on fact that applicant requested assessment as promotion specialist (1122.2) bus dev officer (4163 0) technical sales specialist (6221.0) all reference letters submitted denote she was in administrative management and not promoting or bus developing. Experience therefore not credited as not compatible with requirements listed in noc [sic] as technical sales specialist, does not meet etf as marketing mgr (noco611) appears to have experience however occupational demand factor was zero-hence refusal sent. |
[4] The Applicant submits that it is clear that the immigration officer failed to go beyond the title of her experience. The immigration officer submitted an affidavit wherein she set out that she compared the Applicant"s reference letters and the experience the Applicant alleged she had in her letter of request for permanent landing. In my view, the affidavit expands on the CAIPS notes and sets out the reasoning in more detail. This is permissible I realize there was a 4 month period between the CAIPS notes and the date of the swearing of the affidavit.
[5] The immigration officer did breakdown the Applicant"s job history and assessed all aspects of the Applicant"s experience. The CAIPS notes and the immigration officer"s affidavit are not inconsistent. The standard of review in the case before me is reasonableness simpliciter, it was open to the immigration officer on the evidence before her to find that the Applicant did not have such experience as was required in her intended occupation for which units of assessment could be awarded. The immigration officer"s decision was not unreasonable. She did review all the material.
[6] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
"W.P. McKeown"
| J.F.C.C. |
Toronto, Ontario
June 22nd, 2000.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-5053-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: USHA SINGH |
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY , JUNE 21, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: McKEOWN J. |
| DATED: THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2000 |
| APPEARANCES BY: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary |
| For the Applicant |
| Mr. Martin E. Andersen |
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: CHAUDHARY LAW OFFICE |
Barrister & Solicitor
18 Wynford Drive, Suite 707
North York, Ontario
M3C 3S2
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20000622
Docket: IMM-5053-99
BETWEEN:
| USHA SINGH |
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER |