Date: 20101117
Docket: IMM-494-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1113
Ottawa, Ontario, this 17th
day of November 2010
Before: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
BETWEEN:
Emelita DE GUZMAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision of the First Secretary,
Immigration, of the Canadian Embassy in Makati City, Philippines, pursuant to
subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.
2001, c. 27, by Emelita De Guzman (the “applicant”). The officer rejected the
applicant’s application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled
Worker class on the basis that she did not receive the required number of
points under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”).
* * * * * * * *
[2]
The
applicant is a citizen of the Philippines. She is the primary applicant in this application for
permanent residence, and lists her husband and her three sons as dependents.
[3]
The
applicant has a Bachelor of Sciences in Nursing, as well as an additional
diploma in Nursing, and has worked as a registered nurse since 1991. Her
husband, in addition to completing secondary schooling, has a one-year diploma
in automotive mechanics. Her husband attended other post-secondary institutions
for a total of three years, but did not complete any diploma or certificate.
Her husband has two sisters who live in Canada and are Canadian citizens.
[4]
The
applicant filed her application for permanent residence under the Federal
Skilled Worker class in July 2004, at which time she submitted all relevant
documents regarding her education and that of her husband, as well as regarding
the family members in Canada. In April 2009, the
Embassy requested updated information regarding these issues. The applicant
provided copies of this information, which had not changed since 2004.
[5]
The
applicant submitted in her application that she should receive 67 points
according to the Regulations, including 22 points in the category of Education,
and 8 points in the category of Adaptability, on the basis of her family in Canada and her spouse’s
education.
* * * * * * * *
[6]
The
officer awarded the applicant a total of 62 points, and determined that this
total was insufficient to satisfy the officer that the applicant would be able
to become economically established in Canada, as the minimum requirement for admission is 67
points.
[7]
The
officer awarded 20 points, not 22, in the Education category (the respondent
concedes that 22 points, not 20, should have been awarded to the applicant on
the basis of her education, and that the officer erred with respect to this
category. However, the respondent notes that this only brings the applicant’s
total points to 64).
[8]
The
officer awarded 5 points, not 8, in the Adaptability category.
* * * * * * * *
[9]
The
relevant portion of the Regulations is as follows:
|
Definitions
78. (1) The
definitions in this subsection apply in this section.
“full-time”
“full-time”
means, in relation to a program of study leading to an educational
credential, at least 15 hours of instruction per week during the academic
year, including any period of training in the workplace that forms part of
the course of instruction.
“full-time
equivalent”
“full-time
equivalent” means, in respect of part-time or accelerated studies, the period
that would have been required to complete those studies on a full-time basis.
|
Définitions
78.
(1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent au présent article.
«
équivalent temps plein »
«
équivalent temps plein » Par rapport à tel nombre d’années d’études à temps
plein, le nombre d’années d’études à temps partiel ou d’études accélérées qui
auraient été nécessaires pour compléter des études équivalentes.
«
temps plein »
«
temps plein » À l’égard d’un programme d’études qui conduit à l’obtention
d’un diplôme, correspond à quinze heures de cours par semaine pendant l’année
scolaire, et comprend toute période de formation donnée en milieu de travail
et faisant partie du programme.
|
|
Education
(25 points)
78. (2) A
maximum of 25 points shall be awarded for a skilled worker’s education as
follows:
(a) 5
points for a secondary school educational credential;
(b) 12
points for a one-year post-secondary educational credential, other than a
university educational credential, and a total of at least 12 years of
completed full-time or full-time equivalent studies;
(c) 15
points for
(i) a one-year
post-secondary educational credential, other than a university educational
credential, and a total of at least 13 years of completed full-time or
full-time equivalent studies, or
(ii) a
one-year university educational credential at the bachelor’s level and a
total of at least 13 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent
studies;
(d) 20
points for
(i) a two-year
post-secondary educational credential, other than a university educational
credential, and a total of at least 14 years of completed full-time or
full-time equivalent studies, or
(ii) a
two-year university educational credential at the bachelor’s level and a
total of at least 14 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent
studies;
(e) 22
points for
(i) a
three-year post-secondary educational credential, other than a university
educational credential, and a total of at least 15 years of completed
full-time or full-time equivalent studies, or
(ii) two or
more university educational credentials at the bachelor’s level and a total
of at least 15 years of completed full-time or full-time equivalent studies;
and
(f) 25
points for a university educational credential at the master’s or doctoral
level and a total of at least 17 years of completed full-time or full-time
equivalent studies.
|
Études
(25 points)
78.
(2) Un maximum de 25 points d’appré-ciation sont attribués pour les études du
travailleur qualifié selon la grille suivante :
a) 5 points, s’il a obtenu un
diplôme d’études secondaires;
b) 12 points, s’il a obtenu un
diplôme postsecondaire — autre qu’un diplôme universitaire — nécessitant une
année d’études et a accumulé un total d’au moins douze années d’études à
temps plein complètes ou l’équivalent temps plein;
c) 15 points, si, selon le cas :
(i) il
a obtenu un diplôme postsecondaire — autre qu’un diplôme universitaire —
nécessitant une année d’études et a accumulé un total de treize années
d’études à temps plein complètes ou l’équivalent temps plein,
(ii)
il a obtenu un diplôme universitaire de premier cycle nécessitant une année
d’études et a accumulé un total d’au moins treize années d’études à temps
plein complètes ou l’équivalent temps plein;
d) 20 points, si, selon le cas :
(i) il
a obtenu un diplôme postsecondaire — autre qu’un diplôme universitaire —
nécessitant deux années d’études et a accumulé un total de quatorze années
d’études à temps plein complètes ou l’équivalent temps plein,
(ii)
il a obtenu un diplôme universitaire de premier cycle nécessitant deux années
d’études et a accumulé un total d’au moins quatorze années d’études à temps
plein complètes ou l’équivalent temps plein;
e) 22 points, si, selon le cas :
(i) il
a obtenu un diplôme postsecondaire — autre qu’un diplôme universitaire —
nécessitant trois années d’études à temps plein et a accumulé un total de
quinze années d’études à temps plein complètes ou l’équivalent temps plein,
(ii)
il a obtenu au moins deux diplômes universitaires de premier cycle et a
accumulé un total d’au moins quinze années d’études à temps plein complètes
ou l’équivalent temps plein;
f) 25 points, s’il a obtenu un
diplôme universitaire de deuxième ou de troisième cycle et a accumulé un
total d’au moins dix-sept années d’études à temps plein complètes ou
l’équivalent temps plein.
|
|
Multiple
educational achievements
(3) For the
purposes of subsection (2), points
(a)
shall not be awarded cumulatively on the basis of more than one single
educational credential; and
(b)
shall be awarded
(i) for the
purposes of paragraphs (2)(a) to (d), subparagraph (2)(e)(i)
and paragraph (2)(f), on the basis of the single educational credential
that results in the highest number of points, and
(ii) for the
purposes of subparagraph (2)(e)(ii), on the basis of the combined
educational credentials referred to in that paragraph.
|
Résultats
(3)
Pour l’application du paragraphe (2), les points sont accumulés de la façon
suivante :
a) ils ne peuvent être
additionnés les uns aux autres du fait que le travailleur qualifié possède
plus d’un diplôme;
b) ils sont attribués :
(i)
pour l’application des alinéas (2)a) à d), du sous-alinéa (2)e)(i)
et de l’alinéa (2)f), en fonction du diplôme qui procure le plus de
points selon la grille,
(ii)
pour l’application du sous-alinéa (2)e)(ii), en fonction de l’ensemble
des diplômes visés à ce sous-alinéa.
|
|
Special
circumstances
(4) For the
purposes of subsection (2), if a skilled worker has an educational credential
referred to in paragraph (2)(b), subparagraph (2)(c)(i) or
(ii), (d)(i) or (ii) or (e)(i) or (ii) or paragraph (2)(f),
but not the total number of years of full-time or full-time equivalent studies
required by that paragraph or subparagraph, the skilled worker shall be
awarded the same number of points as the number of years of completed
full-time or full-time equivalent studies set out in the paragraph or
subparagraph.
|
Circonstances
spéciales
(4)
Pour l’application du paragraphe (2), si le travailleur qualifié est
titulaire d’un diplôme visé à l’un des alinéas (2)b), des sous-alinéas
(2)c)(i) et (ii), (2)d)(i) et (ii) et (2)e)(i) et (ii)
ou à l’alinéa (2)f) mais n’a pas accumulé le nombre d’années d’études
à temps plein ou l’équivalent temps plein exigé par l’un de ces alinéas ou
sous-alinéas, il obtient le nombre de points correspondant au nombre d’années
d’études à temps plein — ou leur équivalent temps plein — mentionné dans ces
dispositions.
|
[. . .]
[. . .]
|
Adaptability
(10 points)
83. (1) A
maximum of 10 points for adaptability shall be awarded to a skilled worker on
the basis of any combination of the following elements:
(a) for
the educational credentials of the skilled worker’s accompanying spouse or
accompanying common-law partner, 3, 4 or 5 points determined in accordance
with subsection (2);
(b) for
any previous period of study in Canada by the skilled worker or the skilled
worker’s spouse or common-law partner, 5 points;
(c) for
any previous period of work in Canada by the skilled worker or the skilled
worker’s spouse or common-law partner, 5 points;
(d) for
being related to a person living in Canada who is described in subsection (5), 5
points; and
(e) for
being awarded points for arranged employment in Canada under subsection 82(2), 5 points.
Educational
credentials of spouse or common-law partner
(2) For the
purposes of paragraph (1)(a), an officer shall evaluate the
educational credentials of a skilled worker’s accompanying spouse or
accompanying common-law partner as if the spouse or common-law partner were a
skilled worker, and shall award points to the skilled worker as follows:
(a) for
a spouse or common-law partner who would be awarded 25 points, 5 points;
(b) for
a spouse or common-law partner who would be awarded 20 or 22 points, 4
points; and
(c) for
a spouse or common-law partner who would be awarded 12 or 15 points, 3
points.
|
Capacité
d’adaptation (10 points)
83.
(1) Un maximum de 10 points d’appréciation sont attribués au travailleur
qualifié au titre de la capacité d’adaptation pour toute combinaison des
éléments ci-après, selon le nombre indiqué :
a) pour les diplômes de l’époux
ou du conjoint de fait, 3, 4 ou 5 points conformément au paragraphe (2);
b) pour des études antérieures
faites par le travailleur qualifié ou son époux ou conjoint de fait au
Canada, 5 points;
c) pour du travail antérieur
effectué par le travailleur qualifié ou son époux ou conjoint de fait au
Canada, 5 points;
d) pour la présence au Canada de
l’une ou l’autre des personnes visées au paragraphe (5), 5 points;
e) pour avoir obtenu des points
pour un emploi réservé au Canada en vertu du paragraphe 82(2), 5 points.
Études
de l’époux ou du conjoint de fait
(2)
Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)a), l’agent évalue les diplômes de
l’époux ou du conjoint de fait qui accompagne le travailleur qualifié comme
s’il s’agissait du travailleur qualifié et lui attribue des points selon la
grille suivante :
a) dans le cas où l’époux ou le
conjoint de fait obtiendrait 25 points, 5 points;
b) dans le cas où l’époux ou le
conjoint de fait obtiendrait 20 ou 22 points, 4 points;
c) dans le cas où l’époux ou le
conjoint de fait obtiendrait 12 ou 15 points, 3 points.
|
|
Family
relationships in Canada
(5) For the
purposes of paragraph (1)(d), a skilled worker shall be awarded 5
points if
(a) the
skilled worker or the skilled worker’s accompanying spouse or accompanying
common-law partner is related by blood, marriage, common-law partnership or
adoption to a person who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident living
in Canada and who is
[…]
(v) a child of
their father or mother,
[…]
|
Parenté
au Canada
(5)
Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)d), le travailleur qualifié obtient
5 points dans les cas suivants :
a) l’une des personnes ci-après
qui est un citoyen canadien ou un résident permanent et qui vit au Canada lui
est unie par les liens du sang ou de l’adoption ou par mariage ou union de
fait ou, dans le cas où il l’accompagne, est ainsi unie à son époux ou
conjoint de fait :
[…]
(v) un
enfant de l’un de leurs parents,
[…]
|
* * * * * * * *
[10]
At
the hearing before me, counsel for both parties agreed to raise only one issue,
namely: Did the officer err in law in failing to award eight points in the
Adaptability category when the applicant has qualifying relatives living in
Canada and the applicant’s husband holds a 1-year diploma and a total of 15
years of education?
[11]
The
respondent acknowledges that the applicant rightly received five points on the
basis of her family members in Canada.
[12]
The applicant
submits that she should have received three additional points in this category
on the basis of her husband’s education. Both sides are in agreement as to the
method of calculating the points awarded for a spouse’s education under the
Adaptability category. According to section 83 of the Regulations, the
officer calculates the number of points the spouse would have received for his
or her education under section 78 of the Regulations if the spouse had
been the primary applicant. A corresponding number of points is then awarded to
the primary applicant under section 83 on the basis of this calculation.
[13]
The
parties disagree on the calculation of the husband’s years of education. The
applicant submits that the husband has a total of 15 years of education,
including the one-year diploma in automotive mechanics. According to the
Regulations, if he were the primary applicant, under subparagraph 78(2)(c)(i),
he would be awarded 15 points. Therefore, per paragraph 83(2)(c),
the applicant would receive three points for her husband’s education.
[14]
The
respondent argues that the husband does not have 15 years of education. On the
applicant’s application forms (page 85 of the Tribunal Record), the husband is
shown to have completed 10 years of elementary and secondary schooling. He also
completed a one-year diploma in automotive mechanics. However, the respondent
notes that the husband’s two years at Far Eastern University (1974-1976) and
his one year at University of Manila (1976-1977) did not result in completed
studies, and that therefore these years do not count towards his total years of
education and are not relevant to this application. I agree.
[15]
Subsection
78(1) of the Regulations defines “full-time studies” as being “in relation to a
program of study leading to an educational credential”; the corresponding
French version is more precise: “À l’égard d’un programme d’études qui conduit
à l’obtention d’un diplôme”. As the husband in the present case did not obtain
an educational credential from these years of study, namely 1974-1976 and
1976-1977, they should not be considered.
[16]
In Roberts
v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2009 FC 518, Justice Max M. Teitelbaum
stated:
[18] Even
if it had been before the Officer, the extra year of A Level study would not be
relevant to the assessment of education credentials. In Bhuiya v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 878, [2008] F.C.J. No.
1110, Justice Anne Mactavish explained that “the years of education requirement
is clearly intended to establish minimum standards for each type of degree” and
the fact that an applicant may have spent one additional year in school after
obtaining their degree “does not turn a 16 year Master’s degree into a 17 year
Master’s degree”. That same logic applies here: the fact that the Applicant
spent an extra year in school after obtaining her O Levels does not turn an
11-year diploma into a 12-year one.
(See also MD. Ali Khan v. The Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration, 2010 FC 983, and MD. Khairul Kabir v. The Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, 2010 FC 995.)
* * * * * * * *
[17]
For
the reasons set out above, this application for judicial review is dismissed.
[18]
The
applicant has suggested the following question for certification:
In
assessing the points for education under section 78 of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations, does the visa office award points for years
of full-time or full-time equivalent studies that did not result in the
issuance of an academic credential and were not part of the progression towards
the highest academic credential?
[19]
The
question is whether the question is a “serious question of general importance”
as required by paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act. The respondent argues that it is not, as the Regulations
answer the question, in that the definition of “full-time [education]” set out
in subsection 78(1) qualifies it as being “in relation to a program of study
leading to an educational credential”. In French, « temps plein » is
defined as being « [à] l’égard d’un programme d’études qui conduit à
l’obtention d’un diplôme ».
[20]
The
respondent further notes that subparagraph 78(3)(b)(i) specifies that
points will be awarded “on the basis of the single educational credential that
results in the highest number of points”, and argues that when read together
with the definition of “full-time”, it is clear that Parliament’s intention was
that years of study that did not lead to an educational credential were not to
be counted. The focus in subparagraph 78(3)(b)(i) on the educational
credential itself makes this clear.
[21]
I am
convinced by the respondent’s argument. The applicant cites several cases that
she says demonstrate divergence in the jurisprudence on this point. However, McLachlan
v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2009 FC 975, dealt with the
interpretation of subsection 78(4), which was not raised in this case, and the
two recent cases decided by Madam Justice Elizabeth Heneghan, Khan v.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2010 FC 983, and Kabir v.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2010 FC 995, dealt with situations
in which the applicants were attempting to count the years from two Masters
degrees. In all of these cases, the years of education, whether in excess of
the norm or not, led to an educational credential. The applicant did not point
to any cases where the years of education did not lead to any educational
credential.
[22]
As
the applicant has not identified any diverging jurisprudence on the issue, and
the definitions in the Regulations appear to provide the answer, the
applicant’s question does not meet the threshold of a “serious question of
general importance”.
[23]
No
question is certified.
JUDGMENT
The application for judicial
review of a decision of the First Secretary, Immigration, of the Canadian
Embassy in Makati
City, Philippines, rejecting
the applicant’s application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled
Worker class, is dismissed.
“Yvon
Pinard”
Email this Content