Date: 20030115
Docket: IMM-4759-01
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 34
Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, the 15th day of January, 2003
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
SUNITA RAMESH MAHTANI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
- Ms. Sunita Ramesh Mahtani (the "Applicant) seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Eric Verner (the "Visa Officer") dated August 28, 2001. In his decision, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada as a member of the independent category.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of India, described her intended occupation in Canada as a "Credit & Collections Manager", National Occupational Classification ("NOC") 0122. She also sought assessment in the alternate occupation of "Interior Designer", NOC 5242.
[3] The application was refused at the paper screening stage, without an interview, since the Visa Officer had determined that the Applicant had not performed the duties of her intended occupation as described in NOC 0122. Furthermore, he recorded in the Computer Assisted Input Program System ("CAIPS") notes his concern that the Applicant did not possess the "usually required" degree for this intended occupation, that is a degree in business administration, commerce or economics.
[4] The material submitted by the Applicant included information about her education and employment history. She possessed a degree in Home Economics following completion of studies at St. Paul's College in Manila in 1976. Her employment experience consisted of work as a merchandiser, interior designer, product manager, acting manager and assistant to a vice-president and credit and collection supervisor/manager. The Applicant held this last position with Roshan Commercial Corporation from May 1997 up to the time she submitted her application for immigration to Canada.
[5] The Applicant included material describing her employment duties and reference letters, with her application. This material was before the Visa Officer and according to his affidavit filed in these proceedings, he reviewed all the material submitted by the Applicant.
[6] The Applicant challenges the Visa Officer's conclusion that there were no similarities between her job description as a credit and collections supervisor and the NOC description of her intended occupation. She says this conclusion was reached without regard to the evidence before the Visa Officer, arguing that although the NOC description records eight main duties of a credit manager, the Visa Officer improperly limited his consideration to two of those duties. The Applicant says that the material she submitted shows that she had performed some of the duties identified in the NOC description.
[7] The Applicant also argues that the Visa Officer erroneously applied the wrong test in assessing whether she performed some or all of the duties identified in the NOC. Relying on Paracha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (1999), 3 Imm. L.R. (3d) 293 (F.C.T.D.) and Bhutto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 175 F.T.R. 318, the Applicant argues that the correct test is whether she performed more than one, but not necessarily all, of the duties listed in the NOC description.
[8] Next, the Applicant submits that the CAIPS notes made by the Visa Officer show that he did not properly consider the employment requirements for NOC 0122. She argues that the Visa Officer misinterpreted the usual requirements of a degree in business administration, commerce, economics or a related field as meaning "is required" (emphasis added). The Applicant argues that there is no evidence that the Visa Officer conducted an analysis of whether her experience and other qualities were such that she qualified for her intended occupation even if she did not possess the "usually required" educational qualifications. The Applicant here relies on Karanthos v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 176 F.T.R. 296 and Woo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 198 F.T.R. 282.
[9] The Respondent takes the position that the Applicant is challenging findings of facts that were made by the Visa Officer in his assessment of her application for permanent residence. Since factual findings are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Visa Officer, this Court cannot intervene in such findings unless the Applicant meets the standard set out in section 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended. In this regard, the Respondent relies on Dizon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 115, [2002] F.C.J. No. 135 (T.D.)(Q.L.).
[10] The Respondent argues that the Visa Officer properly considered all the material before him and applied the correct legal tests to the assessment of the Applicant's education. His findings were not made in a perverse or capricious manner, and his conclusion that the Applicant lacked at least one year of experience in her intended occupation of Credit and Collections Manager is not patently unreasonable.
[11] The Respondent also argues that the Visa Officer applied the correct test in assessing the Applicant's educational qualifications in relation to her stated primary occupation.
[12] In my opinion, the Applicant has failed to show that the Visa Officer committed a reviewable error in the manner in which he assessed her application for permanent residence in the primary intended occupation of Credit and Collections Manager, NOC 0122.2. The NOC description records the following duties for Credit Manager:
Credit managers perform some or all of the following duties:
· Plan, organize, direct and control the activities of a credit department in an industrial or commercial organization
· Administer corporate, commercial and personal loan accounts
· Evaluate and review loan and credit applications
· Approve or reject credit applications, establish credit limits and determine repayment plans or schedules
· Ensure collection of overdue or delinquent accounts
· Ensure credit policies and procedures are followed according to established guidelines
· Prepare credit and loan reports
· Recruit credit personnel and oversee their training.
[13] Although the Applicant submitted a description of her current job duties and a reference letter from her employer, Roshan Commercial Corporation, she did not provide any information about the nature of the commercial enterprise undertaken by this entity. There is no information about the credit facilities provided by her employer. The fact that the Applicant's employer's name contained the word "Commercial" is not enough information to determine what type of business they were engaged in. The Applicant had the burden of providing all information in support of her application pursuant to section 8(1) of the Act.
[14] In my opinion, the conclusion of the Visa Officer is reasonably supported by the evidence submitted by the Applicant. There is no basis for interference with the decision under review and this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[15] Counsel advised that no question for certification arises from this application.
ORDER
This application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-4759-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: SUNITA RAMESH MAHTANI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: HENEGHAN J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Harvey Savage
For the Applicant
Ms. Kareena R. Wilding
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Harvey Savage
Barrister & Solicitor
393 University Avenue
Suite 2000
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E6
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:20030115
Docket: IMM-4759-01
BETWEEN:
SUNITA RAMESH MAHTANI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER