Date: 19921208
Docket: IMM-549-99
BETWEEN:
NOEL SANTOS SAMBILE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Wednesday, December 8, 1999)
McGILLIS J.
[1] The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the visa officer dated December 10, 1998, refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada. The visa officer determined that the applicant lacked the requisite qualifications or experience in his intended occupation as an "electrician-inspector, repair, powerhouse".
[2] The visa officer assessed the applicant in various occupations, including industrial electrician, as defined in the National Occupational Classification at 7242. The general description of that occupation reads as follows:
| Industrial Electricians install, maintain, test, troubleshoot and repair industrial electrical equipment and associated electrical and electronic controls. They are employed by electrical contractors and maintenance departments of factories, plants, mines, shipyards and other industrial establishments. Industrial electrician apprentices are included in this unit group. |
[3] The employment requirements in the description specify, among other things, as follows:
| Employment Requirements |
| . Some secondary school education is required |
| . Completion of a four-year industrial electrician apprenticeship program or |
| . A combination of over five years of work experience in the trade and some high school, college or industry courses in industrial electrical equipment is usually required to be eligible for trade certification ... |
[4] In his notes made at the time of the interview with the applicant, the visa officer stated as follows:
| - INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICIAN (NOC 7242) |
| - SHOULD HAVE 4 YR APPRENTICESHIP |
| - DOES NOT HAVE |
| - OR FIVE YEARS EXPERIENCE |
| - SHOULD BE LAYING OUT INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY |
| - CLAIMS TO HAVE WORKED AS SUCH SINCE 94 |
| - ASKED IF EVER WORKED IN A FACTORY. INSTALLLED [SIC] FACTORY MACHINERY |
| - REPLIED NO |
| - INDICATED THAT HE WAS NOT AN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICIAN THEN... |
| - AN INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICIAN MAIN JOB IS TO WIRE FACTORY MACHINERY... |
[5] A review of the notes of the visa officer indicates that he misinterpreted the definition of an industrial engineer by limiting his assessment of the applicant's experience to a factory setting. In doing so, the visa officer erred in law by failing to consider whether the applicant's experience, as described in his reference letter dated April 15, 1997, fell within the broader description outlined in the National Occupational Classification for an industrial electrician. As Gibson J. stated in Prajapati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1463 (T.D.), at paragraph 12, "[h]aving turned to the CCDO for guidance in this matter, the visa officer was obliged to take the whole of the occupation description into account and to interpret it appropriately".
[6] The application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is remitted to a different visa officer for redetermination. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
"D. McGillis"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
December 8, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-549-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: NOEL SANTOS SAMBILE |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
| DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: McGILLIS J. |
DATED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1999
| APPEARANCES: Mr. Max Chaudhary |
| For the Applicant |
| Mr. Kevin Lunney |
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Max Chaudhary |
Barrister & Solicitor
255 Duncan Mill Road, Suite 405
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| For the Respondent |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19991208
Docket: IMM-549-99
BETWEEN:
NOEL SANTOS SAMBILE
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT