Date: 20011121
Docket: IMM-2067-00
Neutral citation: 2001 FCT 1276
BETWEEN:
DELYAN CHOPARINOV
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
[1] In her letter refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence, the visa officer concluded that he had neither performed the main duties nor possessed the professional qualifications required for his intended occupation of Computer Programmer or Programmer Analyst (N.O.C. 2163).
[2] The applicant is a citizen of Bulgaria. By his own admission, he speaks English with difficulty. During his interview with the visa officer, he chose to respond to her questions in English without availing himself of the assistance of the interpreter who was present throughout. In the view of the visa officer, the applicant's short answers were not persuasive that he had the work experience required as a computer programmer.
[3] However, the visa officer acknowledges that she did not focus on the applicant's academic record prior to the interview. In particular, she did not review the detailed transcript listing some fifty-two courses which were part of the applicant's degree obtained in 1993 from the Higher Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Sofia. Her failure to do so, argues the applicant, prevented her from properly assessing the applicant's professional qualifications or the employment requirements for his intended occupation.
[4] The employment requirements for Computer Programmers (N.O.C. 2163) include the following:
§ A bachelor's degree in computer science or in another discipline with a significant programming component, such as mathematics, commerce or business administration,
or
completion of a college program in computer science is usually required.
It was appropriate, in my view, for the respondent's counsel to concede that the words "such as" could encompass a degree in engineering with a significant programming component.
[5] In her CAIPS notes, the visa officer remarked that the applicant "has a couple of basic computer-related courses in his transcript" and that he had no formal training in programming and systems design.
[6] It was during cross-examination that the visa officer acknowledged that she had not examined the transcript until after the interview. When questioned specifically as to whether some twelve of the courses mentioned in the transcript were related to computer science, the visa officer's answers were at best inconsistent. After first acknowledging that "some of these courses might relate to computer programming and systems design", she provided the following responses:
Q. And, in your opinion, could those courses relate to computing?
A. In my opinion, most of those courses don't relate to computer systems design and computer programming.
Q. In your opinion, why not? Why don't they relate to - - how do you draw that conclusion?
A. Well, I think many of them are related to engineering processes and design, and some of them are related, or could be related to computer design and systems design and computer programming.
Q. Would you know which ones related [sic] to engineering processes and which ones relate to computer design and programming?
A. Yes, but it would only be an opinion. I'm not an engineer and I'm not a systems analyst or a computer programmer.
Q. Well, did you review these courses with - - this transcript with Mr. Choparinov?
A. I did not.
Q. Did you ask him whether some of these - - which of these courses related, specifically, to computer science and which didn't?
A. No, I did not.
[7] The applicant's allegation that approximately twelve of his university degree courses are computer-related cannot be properly assessed on the record before me. Indeed, at least initially, this is a matter to be determined by the visa officer, not this Court.
[8] In my opinion, even when the visa officer was cross-examined in this proceeding some months after her refusal of the applicant's application for permanent residence, she did not adequately understand the extent to which the courses studied by the applicant in his degree program could constitute "a significant programming component" within the meaning of the N.O.C. employment requirements. It is difficult to understand how the visa officer could properly assess the applicant's professional qualifications or employment requirements as a Computer Programmer without knowing which of his university courses may have been computer-related.
[9] Moreover, had the visa officer been more alive and alert to the applicant's academic background and had she questioned him concerning this aspect of the employment requirements, she may well have interpreted differently his responses concerning his work experience. In the circumstances of this case, the visa officer could not properly assess his work experience without a better appreciation of his academic training.
[10] In summary, I conclude that the visa officer's finding that the applicant did not possess the professional qualifications required for Computer Programmer was made without regard to the material before her, in particular, his university transcript. This error also had the effect of tainting her appreciation of the applicant's responses during the interview concerning his work experience as a programmer analyst since 1992.
[11] Accordingly, the decision to refuse the applicant's application for permanent residence will be set aside and the matter referred for redetermination by a different visa officer. Neither party suggested the certification of a serious question.
"Allan Lutfy"
A.C.J.
Ottawa, Ontario
November 21, 2001