Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

     IMM-998-96

BETWEEN:

     ALMAS MUMTAZALI KHOJA

     Applicant

     - AND -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered orally from the Bench

     on January 3, 1997, as edited)

McKEOWN J.

     The applicant, a resident of the United States, seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer, dated February 15, 1996, wherein the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada was refused. The issue is whether the visa officer committed a reviewable error by breaching the duty of fairness in failing to assess the applicant in the alternative occupation of ultrasound technician.

     The applicant submitted her application without any professional help. She asked to be assessed as a radiologist, and she was so assessed. She had worked only six months as an ultrasound technician according to her application form.

     In Gaffney v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1991), 12 Imm. L.R. (2d) 185, the Federal Court of Appeal stated:

         ... a visa officer has the duty to assess an application with reference to the occupation represented by the applicant ... as the one for which he or she is qualified and prepared to pursue in Canada ...         

     Other cases, such as Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (T.D.) and Li v. Canada (Minister of Employment & Immigration) (1990), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d) 263 (F.C.T.D.) also require the visa officer to assess alternative occupations where the applicant seeks such an assessment by designating it in her application. The applicant did not give notice to the visa officer or in the application to assess her as an ultrasound technician in the case before me. Therefore, the visa officer had no duty to assess her as an ultrasound technician.

     Furthermore, the applicant only had six months' experience as an ultrasound technician and in order to obtain points in that category, she would have required at least one year's experience; therefore, the error is also inconsequential.

     The application for judicial review is dismissed.

                         _______________________________

                                 Judge

OTTAWA (ONTARIO)

January 20, 1997


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD

COURT FILE NO.: IMM-998-96

STYLE OF CAUSE: ALMAS MUMTAZALI KHOJA v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: January 3, 1997

REASONS FOR ORDER OF the honourable Mr. Jsutice McKeown delivered orally from the Bench

DATED: Januaru 20, 1997

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Joseph S. Farkas FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Jeremiah Eastman FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:

Mr. Joseph S. Farkas FOR THE APPLICANT Toronto, On tario

MR. GEORGE THOMSON FOR THE RESPONDENT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.