Federal Court Decisions

     IMM-2700-96

B E T W E E N:

     TABASSUM SHAHEEN

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY J.:

     This is an application for judicial review of the June 25, 1996 decision of a visa officer from the Canadian consulate general in New York, N.Y. which refused the applicant's application for permanent residence.

     The applicant had applied under the intended occupation of accountant and his application was refused as the result of the visa officer's assessment under the occupational category of bookkeeper (Canadian Classification Directory of Occupations ("CCDO"), 413-1114). His assessment of sixty-four points was six less than the required minimum of seventy.

     The visa officer's refusal letter of June 25, 1996 was issued the following day and states substantially:

The assessment of your application is now complete. I regret to inform you that it has been determined that you do not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada.

Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, independent applicants, the class in which you have applied, are assessed on the basis of the factors outlined in Schedule I of the Immigration Regulations. You were assessed as a Bookkeeper (CCDO 4131114) for which you were awarded the following points:

         Age (24):              10

         Occupational Factor:          01

         S.V.P.:                  11

         Experience:              04

         A.R.E.:              00

         Demographic Factor:          08

         Education:              15

         English:              09

         French:                  03

         Bonus:                  00

         Suitability:              06

             TOTAL:          64

You have been awarded insufficient units of assessment to qualify for immigration to Canada. Therefore, you come within the inadmissable class of persons described in paragraph 19(2)(d) of the Immigration Act, and your application has been refused.

     The applicant submits that he was improperly disqualified as an accountant under anyone of three categories, Accountant (CCDO 1171-114), Accountant, Budget (CCDO 1171-118) and Accountant, Cost (CCDO 1171-122). The applicant was disqualified under Accountant (CCDO 1171-114) by the visa officer and submits that he could have been properly assessed under anyone of the three occupations. The applicant's second ground is that the visa officer failed to disclose his disqualification as an accountant in her refusal letter of June 25, 1996.

     In my view, the application for judicial review must be dismissed.

     The visa officer committed no reviewable error in disqualifying the applicant as an accountant. The applicant's formal education in accounting is limited to two general introductory courses (accounting and bookkeeping) from the Kashmir College of Commerce and Business Administration in 1992-93. The visa officer questioned the authenticity of the documents submitted by the applicant purporting to attest to his working experience as an accountant in Pakistan during 1993-95 and in the United States since March 1995. In any event, the visa officer characterized the functions attributed to the applicant with these two employers as those of a bookkeeper.

     The applicant was advised of the visa officer's concerns in this regard during the interview of May 29, 1996. He was afforded an additional period of approximately thirty days to submit supplementary information after he was told that the visa officer could not assess him as an accountant and would assess his application for permanent residence under the alternate category of bookkeeper. The visa officer received no supplementary information from the applicant and issued her decision on June 26, 1996.

     On the basis of the evidence, it is difficult to envisage how the visa officer could have come to any other conclusion concerning the applicant's intended occupation as accountant. The applicant has failed totally to establish any reviewable error in this regard.

     Counsel for the respondent acknowledges that it may have been more complete for the visa officer to include her views with respect to the applicant's disqualification as an accountant in her refusal letter of June 25, 1996. However, the applicant admits that he was informed of his disqualification as an accountant during the interview of May 29, 1996. He was provided an opportunity to submit supplementary information. Any deficiency of omission in the refusal letter, and I need not decide this issue in the circumstances of this case, would not warrant setting aside the visa officer's decision. On the basis of the record, the applicant has neither the academic or working experience to carry out the functions of accountant in any three of the categories as defined in the CCDO.

     For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.

     Counsel were invited to make representations concerning the certification of a serious question on or prior to May 15, 1997. These Reasons for Order do not give rise to a serious question of general importance.

                        

                         Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

May 16, 1997