Date: 19990728
Docket: IMM-4092-98
BETWEEN:
NOOSHIN NEMATI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
EVANS J.
[1] I find no reviewable error in the refusal of the visa officer to issue a visa to the applicant who applied for admission to Canada as an independent immigrant.
[2] The visa officer refused to assess the applicant"s experience in her intended occupation of advertising and marketing consultant because she did not satisfy the education and training factor prescribed by the National Occupational Classification for this particular occupation.
[3] The NOC provides that a degree or diploma in business administration or commerce is usually required for this occupation. The applicant has a degree in social science and three years" work experience in her intended occupation.
[4] The officer relied on the interpretative provisions of the NOC which state that, when an educational level is "usually required" an applicant must meet it unless the officer is satisfied that there are "significant and substantial" factors in the file which make it likely that the applicant could overcome the absence of the usual requirement.
[5] In his affidavit the visa officer stated that, after examining the applicant"s university transcript and her work experience, he was not satisfied that they compensated for her lack of a degree in business administration or commerce.
[6] Whether a person has satisfied the requirements of an intended occupation is a finding of fact that is reviewable on an application for judicial review only if made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the decision-maker.
[7] The visa officer"s decision to refuse Ms. Nemati"s application for a visa cannot be so characterized.
[8] Counsel also argued that the duty of fairness required the visa officer to inform the applicant that he was not satisfied that she met the educational requirement, and to afford her an opportunity to respond before he made his decision.
[9] There is no general duty on visa officers to communicate a negative assessment of an application before they render their decision. I see nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that in this case fairness required prior notice of an adverse decision and an opportunity for the applicant to comment. It is the obligation of the applicant to produce material that satisfies the visa officer that the person meets the selection criteria.
[10] For these reasons the application for judicial review is dismissed.
"John M. Evans"
J.F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
July 28, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-4092-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: NOOSHIN NEMATI |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: EVANS J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Michael Brodzky
For the Applicant
Ms. Andrea M. Horton
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Michael Brodzky
| Barrister & Solicitor |
| 69 Elm Street |
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M5G 1H2 |
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:19990728
Docket: IMM-4092-98
Between:
| NOOSHIN NEMATI |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
| AND ORDER |