Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-08-15 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 871 File numbers IMM-5469-00 Decision Content Date: 20020815 Docket: IMM-5469-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 871 BETWEEN: AZIZ UR RAHMAN Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER ROTHSTEIN J.A. (ex officio) This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer which denied the applicant's application for permanent residence in the occupation of a social worker. The basis of the decision was that the applicant did not have a bachelor's degree in social work as required for the occupation of social work in the National Occupational Classification (NOC). [2] The applicant had an MA in Social Anthropology from Peshawar University in Pakistan. He says this was, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to a degree in social work. At the very least, he says, if the visa officer was in doubt on this point, he should have been given an opportunity to clear up any ambiguity. [3] Upon a review of the record, it appears that all references to the applicant's education are to a degree in anthropology or social anthropology. The courses taken by the applicant e.g. Principles of Anthropology, Ethnography, Applied Anthropology, Political Anthropology, confirm that the substance of his education was anthropology. [4] I do not overlook the fact that some of his courses might have some relationship to …
Read full judgment
Rahman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2002-08-15 Neutral citation 2002 FCT 871 File numbers IMM-5469-00 Decision Content Date: 20020815 Docket: IMM-5469-00 Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 871 BETWEEN: AZIZ UR RAHMAN Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER ROTHSTEIN J.A. (ex officio) This is a judicial review of a decision of a visa officer which denied the applicant's application for permanent residence in the occupation of a social worker. The basis of the decision was that the applicant did not have a bachelor's degree in social work as required for the occupation of social work in the National Occupational Classification (NOC). [2] The applicant had an MA in Social Anthropology from Peshawar University in Pakistan. He says this was, for all intents and purposes, equivalent to a degree in social work. At the very least, he says, if the visa officer was in doubt on this point, he should have been given an opportunity to clear up any ambiguity. [3] Upon a review of the record, it appears that all references to the applicant's education are to a degree in anthropology or social anthropology. The courses taken by the applicant e.g. Principles of Anthropology, Ethnography, Applied Anthropology, Political Anthropology, confirm that the substance of his education was anthropology. [4] I do not overlook the fact that some of his courses might have some relationship to social work e.g. Criminology, or perhaps, Field Work. The applicant says that courses change over time and that the substance of an anthropology degree could be considered the same as a social work degree. If that were correct, it seems to me that the applicant was obliged to make that point in his visa application. He did not. The NOC requirement is a degree in social work. On its face, the applicant did not have that degree. I cannot say that the visa officer erred in finding that he did not meet the employment requirements for the occupation of social worker. [5] Nor do I think there was an obligation on the visa officer to interview the applicant or make further inquiries as to whether his degree in anthropology was equivalent to a degree in social work. Apart from the fact that there was no obligation on the visa officer to conduct an interview on the facts of this case, there was no ambiguity to clear up. The applicant says the visa officer seems to have been under a misapprehension, but that is not apparent from the record. She saw that the applicant did not have a degree in social work and that he, therefore, did not meet the employment requirements for the social work occupation. There was no ambiguity. [6] The applicant says that the visa officer misconstrued a letter of reference as not indicating experience in social work. However, this issue does not arise. Because he did not have a degree in social work, he did not meet the employment requirements for the job of social worker. The visa officer was obliged to deny his application for that reason alone. [7] The judicial review should be dismissed. "Marshall Rothstein" Judge Toronto, Ontario August 15, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: IMM-5469-00 STYLE OF CAUSE: AZIZ UR RAHMAN Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN J. DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 15, 2002 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Rocco Galati For the Applicant Mr. David Tyndale, and Ms. Pamela Larmondin For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Galati, Rodrigues, Azevedo & Associates Barristers & Solicitors 203-637 College St. Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B5 For the Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date:20020815 Docket: IMM-5469-00 BETWEEN: AZIZ UR RAHMAN Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca