Sachdeva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Sachdeva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-02-05 Neutral citation 2003 FCT 123 File numbers IMM-3569-01 Decision Content Date: 20030205 Docket: IMM-3569-01 Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 123 OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2003 PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN BETWEEN:

MOHINDER KUMAR SACHDEVA Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER Mr. Mohinder Kumar Sachdeva (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Sarah Trillo (the "Visa Officer"). In her decision, dated June 11, 2001, the Visa Officer determined that the Applicant lacked experience in his intended occupation of purchasing agent, National Occupation Classification ("NOC") 1225. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of India. At the time of his application, he was employed as a purchasing agent for Kavita Textiles, LLC, operating out of New Jersey. He described his intended occupation in Canada as a retail and wholesale buyer/purchasing agent. [3] In support of his application for permanent residence, the Applicant provided two reference letters from his present and former employer. Upon a pre-screening of his application, a visa officer with the initials "MLH" noted on June 27, 2000 that these letters appear to have been signed by the same party, on the same date. [4] The Applicant attended the interview on May 22, 2001, where he was questioned by the Visa Officer concerning his previous and present employment. The Visa Officer also questioned him about reference letters, including those submitted with his application. She dismissed as not credible three of the letters which were submitted by his application and advised the Applicant that she accepted only the reference letter that addressed his

experience as an accountant. [5] The Visa Officer recorded in the Computer Assisted Input Program System ("CAIPS") a note that the reference letters were notarized the same day and further, that the two letters from India and one from his American employer were signed and notarized the same day. The Visa Officer advised the Applicant that she could not accept his work experience as a purchasing agent because the reference letters, in her view, were not acceptable. [6] The Visa Officer, in her refusal letter, said that she was refusing the Applicant's application because he lacked experience as a purchasing agent, his intended occupation. She awarded the following units of assessment: Age 10 Occupational factor 00 Education and Training 15 Experience 00 Arranged employment or designated occupation 00 Demographic factor 08 Education 16 Knowledge of English 06 Knowledge of French 00 Personal suitability 02 TOTAL 57 [7] The Applicant argues that the Visa Officer committed reviewable errors in the manner in which she assessed his experience, his language abilities and his personal suitability. He says that she ignored the evidence before her, including the reference letters and the short paragraph he wrote during the interview concerning the components of his present employment. [8] Generally, the Respondent takes the position that the Visa Officer properly assessed the Applicant's

application. Insofar as she concluded that the Applicant lacked the necessary experience in his intended occupation, that finding is entitled to considerable deference. The Respondent here relies on Farooqui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 182 F.T.R. 306. [9] The Respondent further submits that the findings of the Visa Officer concerning the Applicant's language skills and personal suitability were clearly within the statutory discretion afforded her. In the absence of evidence that she considered irrelevant material or ignored relevant evidence, her findings should be undisturbed. Here, the Respondent relies on Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2001] F.C.J. No. 1343 (T.D.)(QL) and Gill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 34 Imm. L.R. (2d) 127 (F.C.T.D.). [10] In my opinion, the Visa Officer erred in her dismissal of the reference letters provided by the Applicant on the basis that they were all dated the same day. A cursory examination of these reference letters, as they appear in the tribunal record, indicates that they were all stamped and signed by a Notary Public in New York City on the same day, that is February 27, 2000. It was easily open to the Visa Officer to make inquiries of the Applicant about the significance of this date, and she apparently did not do so. [11] However, an error in this

regard is not sufficient to justify judicial intervention with the decision under review. According to the Federal Court of Appeal in Patel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 288 N.R. 48 (F.C.A.), at paragraph 13: When on an application for judicial review of a visa officer's refusal to issue a visa the Court concludes that the officer committed a reviewable error and awarded the applicant too few units of assessment, the Court may in its discretion refuse to set the decision aside if, in its view, the error could have made no difference to the officer's decision because, even after the error was corrected, the applicant still had insufficient points to be issued a visa. [12] The findings of the Visa Officer concerning the Applicant's language ability and personal suitability are reasonably supported by the evidence, and there is no basis for judicial intervention with these findings. [13] In the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.

ORDER The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" J.F.C.C.

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

TRIAL DIVISION

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3569-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHINDER KUMAR SACHDEVA v. MCI PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 29, 2003

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN DATED: FEBRUARY 5, 2003 APPEARANCES: Ramesh Sangha FOR APPLICANT Stephen Jarvis FOR RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ramesh Sangha FOR APPLICANT Barrister & Solicitor 7125 Goreway Drive Suite 202 Mississauga, ON L4T 2H5 Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE