Date: 19990830
Docket: IMM-4089-98
BETWEEN:
BASIL SUGHAYER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY J.:
[1] Basil Sughayer is a Jordanian who sought permanent residence in Canada as an independent immigrant under the intended occupation of Accountant (NOC 1111.2).
[2] The visa officer concluded that the applicant's qualifications and work experience did not meet the requirements of an Accountant. He was awarded sixty-two units of assessment under his intended occupation.
[3] Mr. Sughayer's principal hurdle in this application for judicial review is to establish a reviewable error in the visa officer's assessment of his work experience.
[4] Mr. Sughayer's application form, with supporting documentation, is a little assistance. In 1993, he obtained a Bachelor of Administration degree from a Jordanian university, with a major in financial and banking sciences and a minor in accounting. He has no further academic credentials in accounting or any other discipline. Between 1993-97, he worked as an accountant for an auto shop company in Amman. His employer's letter of recommendation does not describe his functions beyond stating that he worked as an accountant. Since 1997, he has been working as a public relations officer with the Arab Bank Plc in Amman.
[5] There is no documentary information which would warrant interfering with the visa officer"s determination that Mr. Sughayer did not establish his qualifications as an Accountant (NOC 1111.2).
[6] The visa officer and the applicant have different interpretations of their interview exchange concerning his work experience as an accountant. In his affidavit, Mr. Sughayer described his functions as an accountant in these terms: (a) he developed a computerized accounting system; (b) he checked financial records and reports; (c) he prepared financial reports on request and analysed financial statements; and (d) he entered the financial data of company transactions on the computer and obtained bills and receipts from his company's branches.
[7] The applicant's description of his functions, even in his affidavit, are stated in very broad terms. No details are provided. Even accepting that the visa officer interrupted the applicant on occasion during the interview, Mr. Sughayer subsequently had an additional three weeks prior to the issuance of the letter of decision to establish his credentials with further documentary evidence.
[8] In summary , even assuming the applicant's version of the interview, he has failed to establish any reviewable error in the visa officer's conclusion that he did not meet the requirements of an Accountant under the National Occupation Classification. He does not appear to have been educated nor to have worked as an accountant within the NOC definition of that profession.
[9] In his CAIPS notes, the visa officer remarked that the applicant's experience was that of a bookkeeper. His failure to assess Mr. Sughayer in that occupation was raised during oral representations.
[10] The respondent argued that the visa officer need only make an assessment in the applicant's intended occupation or in an alternate occupation, where one is indicated in the application form or during the interview: Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (T.D.) at 83; Khoja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 39 (QL) (T.D.); and Mahrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 46 Imm. L.R. (2d )132 (T.D.) at paragraph 10.
[11] The applicant replied that where there is a close fit between the intended and alternate occupations, as is the case with accountants and bookkeepers, and where there is no gap between the alternate occupation and the potential immigrant's qualifications, the visa officer should make the secondary assessment: Adami v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 669 (T.D.) at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15.
[12] In this case, I am not prepared to conclude that the visa officer was required to assess the applicant as a bookkeeper. Mr. Sughayer"s academic exposure to accounting was not significant and the visa officer was uncertain as to the applicant's real functions when he was purportedly employed as an accountant. Most significantly, at the time of the interview, the applicant was working as a public relations officer. There is no evidence that he would be interested in pursuing a career as a bookkeeper in Canada.
[13] Any concern with the visa officer's assessment of the applicant's language skills is moot in view of my conclusions concerning the absence of any other reviewable error. Even with additional units under the language factor, the applicant would not meet the minimum requirement of seventy units.
[14] This application for judicial review will be dismissed. Neither party suggested the
certification of a serious question. Counsel agreed that these reasons should be in the official language with which the applicant was most familiar, even thought their representations were in French.
"Allan Lutfy"
Ottawa, Ontario J.F.C.C.
August 30, 1999