Date: 20000224
Docket: IMM-807-99
BETWEEN:
SHALINI REDDY DUVURU
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.: (orally)
[1] I have looked at this file carefully and now heard counsels" submissions. It is clear to me that the occupation of marketing manager and marketing consultant are different though related occupations. I do not read the NOC descriptions, however, as indicating that the duties of a marketing consultant are included within those of a marketing manager. Rather, I think the two occupations are in the reverse hierarchical order, those of a manager being more specific and limited than those of a consultant.
[2] The NOC description indicates that a marketing consultant analyses the operations, managerial methods and marketing functions in order to propose improvements. The description leads to a conclusion that it is likely that such a person would deal with a number of different products and a number of different clients (although the last is not essential). A marketing manager, on the other hand, appears to be more directly involved with the day to day running of a specific marketing department.
[3] When we review the employer reference letter, to which Mr. Chaudhary referred, it is clear that this applicant"s duties fall under the description of marketing manager, not marketing consultant. I cannot conclude that the visa officer"s decision was unreasonable.
[4] Then, one turns to the documents on the record. I agree that the title that a person"s job carries is not conclusive, and that the actual duties she or he performs must be assessed. However, having done that assessment, one cannot be faulted for noting that: in the reference letters from the employer, the applicant is described as a marketing manager; in the company"s organizational chart she fills the position of marketing manager; her tax documentation and pay records describe her as a marketing manager. The documents do not present a different picture from that arising from an evaluation of her actual duties.
[5] For the reasons given, the visa officer"s decision is not one that I am entitled to set aside. The application is dismissed.
"B. Reed"
J.F.C.C.
TORONTO, ONTARIO
February 24, 2000
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-807-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: SHALINI REDDY DUVURU |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2000
APPEARANCES: Mr. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Officer |
Barristers & Solicitors
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: 20000224
Docket: IMM-807-99
Between:
| SHALINI REDDY DUVURU |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER