Date: 20120503
Docket: IMM-6867-11
Citation: 2012 FC 520
Toronto, Ontario, May 3, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
|
|
KEHINDE HASSANAT ELISHA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicant, a citizen of Nigeria and permanent resident
of the United
States,
seeks judicial review of the decision dated September 22, 2011 denying her
application for Canadian permanent residence as a Federal Skilled Worker under
the National Occupational Classification (hereafter NOC) code 3152 – registered
nurse.
[2]
For
the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.
[3]
The
applicant graduated from the University of South Carolina in 2007 with a degree
in nursing. She is registered as a nurse in the state of New York and has a
record of employment at the Duke University Hospital and the New York
Presbyterian Hospital.
[4]
Ms.
Elisha applied under the Federal Skilled Worker program on May 2, 2011. She
provided letters confirming her employment as well as copies of her
professional qualifications. As the employment letters were generic in nature,
she provided further information about her work experience in the form of a
written explanation.
[5]
Tanya
Craig, a Service Delivery Agent at the Federal Skilled Worker Centralized
Intake Office, found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence
that she had performed the actions described in the lead statement for the
occupation or that she had performed a substantial number of the main duties of
the occupation. The agent also noted that the applicant had not provided
evidence that she had an Arranged Employment Offer and that her application was
therefore not eligible for processing.
[6]
The
sole issue raised by the applicant is whether the agent failed to properly
consider her written explanation about her work experience.
[7]
Decisions
about whether an applicant is eligible for permanent residence as a Federal
Skilled Worker are reviewable on the reasonableness standard: Nasr v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 783 at para 12.
[8]
In
this case I had no difficulty in concluding that the agent's decision was
reasonable. In her written explanation, the applicant had simply listed a number
of the main duties set out in the NOC without providing any specifics about her
actual employment experience as a registered nurse.
[9]
The
applicant submits that she had a legitimate expectation that the agent would
consider that the written explanation she provided would remedy the
deficiencies in her reference letters. I don't agree. As stated by Mr. Justice
Pinard in Kamchibekov v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2011 FC 1411 at paragraph 15, officers presented with descriptions of duties
taken verbatim from the NOC are entitled to wonder whether they accurately
describe the applicant’s work experience.
[10]
The
applicant was provided with specific instructions as to how to complete her
application. These are set out in the Overseas Processing Manual OP 6 and the
Visa Office Specific Instructions, Buffalo, dated November 2010. The
instructions include requirements for the information to be included in the
reference letters provided by employers. As the employment letters did not
contain the necessary information, the applicant sought to rectify the deficit
by providing a written explanation. In such cases, the Buffalo instructions
state, the applicant must also provide documentation such as employment
contracts, work descriptions and performance appraisals describing job duties
to support the claim to relevant employment.
[11]
Here,
the applicant did not provide any supporting documentation in relation to her
work at the New York Presbyterian Hospital, other than her identity card, and
her employment at the Duke University Hospital.
[12]
The
onus was on the applicant to file her application with all relevant supporting
documentation and to provide sufficient credible evidence in support: Karanja
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 574 at para 8;
and Oladipo v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 366 at para 24. She must put her
“best case forward”. That was simply not done.
[13]
In
the result, the decision to dismiss the application was well within the range
of acceptable outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law: Dunsmuir
v New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9 at para 47.
[14]
Neither
of the parties proposed serious questions of general importance for
consideration.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S
JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed. No
question is certified.
“Richard
G. Mosley”
Email this Content