Saatchi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1037 : Refusal Upheld Where Officer Reasonably Found Canadian Work Experience Did Not Match Claimed NOC

Adel Saatchi sought judicial review of the refusal of his permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class. He claimed qualifying Canadian work experience as a Technical Sales Specialist – Wholesale Trade under NOC 6221. The immigration officer concluded that his employment was more consistent with an automobile salesperson under NOC 6421, a lower-skilled retail occupation. The Federal Court found the officer’s assessment reasonable and dismissed the application.

Key Principle

For Canadian Experience Class eligibility, an applicant’s job title does not determine whether the claimed work experience falls within a particular NOC. An officer must examine the actual “pith and substance” of the employment, including whether the applicant performed the actions in the NOC lead statement and a substantial number of its main duties. Performing some overlapping or tangential duties does not transform retail employment into a qualifying skilled occupation.

Background

Saatchi applied under the CEC in November 2016, relying on NOC 6221. He submitted employment letters from two Chrysler dealerships describing his positions as Technical Sales Representative – Wholesale Trade Specialist in Heavy-Duty Trucks and Cargo Vans. The letters listed duties including developing sales, communicating with clients, identifying customer requirements, account management and preparing sales contracts.

The officer concluded that Saatchi’s experience more closely resembled NOC 6421, Retail Salesperson. The GCMS notes emphasized that Saatchi himself had described his Scarborotown Chrysler employment as “auto sales” and that “automobile salesperson” was an example title under NOC 6421.

Court Findings

• Officers May Look Beyond Formal Job Titles

The Court confirmed that immigration officers may look beyond an employer’s chosen job title and independently evaluate the actual work performed. A title and relevant education are not enough. Applicants must establish that they performed the actions described in the NOC lead statement and a substantial number of the main duties.

• Evidence Did Not Establish Wholesale Technical Sales

The Court noted an important distinction between the occupations. NOC 6221 involved selling technical goods or services to governments and commercial or industrial establishments, whereas NOC 6421 covered sales directly to consumers. Although Saatchi’s letters used the claimed technical-sales title, the employers appeared to be retail car dealerships and the listed duties did not provide particulars demonstrating wholesale trade in heavy-duty trucks or cargo vans. His own application described the work as “auto sales.”

Saatchi later stated that his customers were mainly farmers and construction companies, but that information appeared only in an affidavit filed on judicial review. Because it was not before the officer, the Court could not use it to assess the reasonableness of the decision.

• Officer Reasonably Assessed Sufficiency of Evidence

The Court held that the onus rested on Saatchi to establish CEC eligibility. The officer was entitled to determine whether the evidence demonstrated the claimed NOC rather than simply accepting the employment letters’ terminology. The conclusion that he had not established qualifying NOC 6221 experience fell within the range of reasonable outcomes.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the officer’s determination that Saatchi had not established the required skilled Canadian work experience under NOC 6221.

Case Citation:

Saatchi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1037 (CanLII)