Date: 20110301
Docket: IMM-3091-10
Citation: 2011
FC 241
Ottawa, Ontario,
March 1, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
|
|
VISHAL ARORA
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) for judicial review of a
decision of an immigration officer of the Immigration Section of the High
Commission of Canada in Delhi, India (the officer), dated May 10, 2010, wherein
the officer refused the applicant’s application for a Canadian work permit.
[2]
The applicant requests that the decision of the officer be set
aside and the application remitted for redetermination by a different officer.
Background
[3]
Vishal
Arora (the applicant) was born on September 6, 1987 in Meham, India.
[4]
The
applicant completed high school in 2005 and alleges that he began working for
Ghandi Infotech as a telemarketer in June 2005. At Ghandi Infotech, he states
that he supervised two teams of telemarketers. The applicant further alleges
that he joined Assent India in May 2006 as a
business development executive.
[5]
The
applicant joined One Touch Solutions India (OTS India) as a business development
manager in September 2007. He states that his main duties are to contact
companies in the United Kingdom and Australia and offer them OTS telemarketing services. The
applicant states that as the business grew, he was in charge of approximately
25 people. Currently, the staff he supervises is approximately 58 people
including account managers, team leaders and supervisors.
[6]
The
applicant was offered a position to work in Canada on a
temporary basis with OTS Canada.
[7]
The
applicant applied for a Canadian work permit and temporary resident visa as an
intra-company transferee under subsection 205(a) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the
Regulations).
[8]
The
normal application process requires foreign nationals seeking a temporary resident
visa and work permit to apply for a labour market opinion (LMO) assessing the
economic impact of hiring a foreign national for the position sought. Section
205 of the Regulations provides an exemption from the LMO requirement for
intra-company transferees.
Officer’s Decision
[9]
Through
a combination of a refusal letter and the Computer Assisted Immigration
Processing System (CAIPS) notes, the officer found that the applicant had not
demonstrated that he met the requirements of an intra-company transferee such
that he should be exempted from applying for an LMO and receive a work permit
and temporary resident visa.
[10]
The
officer found discrepancies between a letter from the applicant’s employer and
the applicant’s submitted forms with respect to his annual salary.
[11]
The
officer was not satisfied that the applicant works as a senior executive or
holds a managerial level position due to his age (23 years old), his level of
education (grade 12), his limited experience with the company (less than three
years), his modest income and the lack of evidence with respect to his prior
work experience.
Issues
[12]
The
issues are as follows:
1. What is the
appropriate standard of review?
2. Did the officer
ignore letters of the applicant’s past work experience?
3. Did the officer
ignore evidence or base her decision on extraneous criteria?
Applicant’s Written Submissions
[13]
The
applicant submits that the officer erred by importing subjective and extraneous
criteria into her assessment. The officer improperly considered the applicant’s
age, lack of post-secondary education, limited number of years with the company
and level of income to determine whether the applicant is a senior manager.
These factors are not mentioned in the Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Foreign Worker Manual (FW1 Manual) in outlining the positions of senior executive
or manager. Rather, the FW1 Manual specifically states that only one year of
management experience in the past three years is necessary.
[14]
Further,
the position of business development manager under the NOC 0621 only requires
the completion of secondary school. It was a reviewable error to require a
higher education than that set down in the NOC.
[15]
The
applicant submits that the officer’s reasons are inadequate as she did not
indicate on what basis she concluded the applicant’s salary to be modest.
[16]
The
applicant also submits that the officer failed to consider the details of the
applicant’s current duties with OTS India when making her assessment. These
duties demonstrated the applicant’s managerial role.
[17]
Finally,
the officer failed to take into consideration the evidence of the applicant’s
previous employment.
Respondent’s Written Submissions
[18]
The
respondent submits that the factors considered by the officer are not
irrelevant or subjective. Rather, the officer must make a determination as to
whether transferees are qualified for the job positions for which they apply
and the officer is not limited to the general considerations included in the
policy manual. The officer was required to assess all information presented to
her as stipulated in the processing manual.
[19]
It
was reasonable for the officer to consider the applicant’s age and education as
both are unusually low for a position as a senior executive or manger.
[20]
It
was also reasonable for the officer to find that the applicant is a relatively
junior employee as the applicant has limited experience with OTS India and
there were no other letters or documentary evidence on file from previous
employers, despite the submissions made by the applicant that there were.
[21]
The
officer based her decision in part on the discrepancies between the applicant’s
bank statements and the statements from the applicant’s employer concerning his
salary. It was reasonable for the officer to compare the applicant’s current
salary of approximately $8,000 to that which he would receive in Canada, $65,000 and determine
that he currently makes a modest salary.
[22]
The
respondent submits that the officer fully considered the letters from OTS India
outlining the applicant’s current duties in India and prospective duties in Canada. However, the officer
concluded that based on the entirety of the evidence, the applicant had not
shown he worked as a senior executive or managerial level position.
Analysis and Decision
[23]
Issue
1
What is the appropriate
standard of review?
A refusal of
a temporary work permit is an administrative decision made within the officer’s
legislative authority and is ostensibly a determination of fact (see Samuel
v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 223 at paragraph 26). In
accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada, administrative
fact finding is afforded a high degree of deference and reasonableness is the
appropriate standard of review for the immigration officer’s factual
determination (see Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
v. Khosa,
2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at paragraph 46).
[24]
Issue
2
Did the officer
ignore letters of the applicant’s past work experience?
The applicant
submits that his application included documents from his previous employers Ghandi Infotech, Delhi Call Centers and Assent India.
[25]
The
officer did not mention these letters in the CAIPS notes, the respondent
asserts that such letters were not included in the application for the Canadian
Work Permit and the letters are not included in the certified tribunal record.
[26]
As
such, I cannot find that the letters were before the officer in determining the
application or that she ignored such letters.
[27]
Issue
3
Did the officer ignore
evidence or base her decision on extraneous criteria?
The officer was required to
determine whether the applicant was a senior executive or manager such that he
qualified for the subsection 205(a) exemption in the Regulations.
[28]
In
order to do this, the officer needed to assess the qualities listed in section
5.31 of the FW1 Manual. This section details what executive capacity and
managerial capacity entail.
[29]
The
officer did not refer to these qualities, nor did she refer to the letter from
the applicant’s employer indicating his current job duties and proposed job
duties at OTS Canada.
[30]
Rather,
the officer was not satisfied that the applicant works as a senior executive or
manager because of his age, education level, limited experience with the
company, lack of evidence of past work experience and modest salary.
[31]
While
these factors may play a part in an officer’s assessment, they cannot be
substituted for an assessment of the qualities of a manger as outlined in the
FW1 Manual.
[32]
In
addition, several factors noted by the officer were irrelevant to the
assessment. For example, the officer was concerned that the applicant could not
be a senior executive at the age of 23 years. However, age is not a factor
listed in the FW1 Manual and not allowing the exemption under subsection 205(a)
of the Regulations based on the applicant’s age is inappropriate.
[33]
In
addition, the officer noted with concern that the applicant had limited
experience with the company – only three years – and therefore he must be a
relatively junior employee. The problem with the officer’s finding is that the
FW1 Manual explicitly states that the applicant must show only one year of
managerial experience at the company for which he is applying for a work
permit.
[34]
Finally,
neither the FW1 Manual nor the Regulations require a certain salary level
before an applicant can be considered a senior executive or manager. As such,
it was an error for the officer to draw a negative inference from the finding
that the applicant made a modest salary.
[35]
The
officer’s failure to consider whether the applicant’s position met the
qualities of a senior executive or manager and her use of inappropriate
criteria in assessing the applicant’s application is not a decision making
process demonstrating justification,
transparency and intelligibility as required by the reasonableness standard of Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47.
[36]
As
such, I would allow the judicial review.
[37]
The
decision of the officer is therefore set aside and the matter is referred to a
different officer for redetermination.
[38]
Neither
party wished to submit a proposed serious question of general importance for my
consideration for certification.
JUDGMENT
[39]
IT IS
ORDERED that the
application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is referred to a
different officer for redetermination.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, 2001, c. 27
|
72.(1)
Judicial review by the Federal Court with respect to any matter — a decision,
determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under
this Act is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court.
|
72.(1)
Le contrôle judiciaire par la Cour fédérale de toute mesure — décision,
ordonnance, question ou affaire — prise dans le cadre de la présente loi est
subordonné au dépôt d’une demande d’autorisation.
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations,
SOR/2002-227
|
205. A work permit may be issued under
section 200 to a foreign national who intends to perform work that
(a) would
create or maintain significant social, cultural or economic benefits or
opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
(b) would
create or maintain reciprocal employment of Canadian citizens or permanent
residents of Canada in other countries;
(c) is
designated by the Minister as being work that can be performed by a foreign
national on the basis of the following criteria, namely,
(i) the work
is related to a research, educational or training program, or
(ii) limited
access to the Canadian labour market is necessary for reasons of public
policy relating to the competitiveness of Canada's academic institutions or
economy; or
(d) is of a
religious or charitable nature.
|
205.
Un permis de travail peut être délivré à l’étranger en vertu de l’article 200
si le travail pour lequel le permis est demandé satisfait à l’une ou l’autre
des conditions suivantes :
a) il permet
de créer ou de conserver des débouchés ou des avantages sociaux, culturels ou
économiques pour les citoyens canadiens ou les résidents permanents;
b) il permet
de créer ou de conserver l’emploi réciproque de citoyens canadiens ou de
résidents permanents du Canada dans d’autres pays;
c) il est
désigné par le ministre comme travail pouvant être exercé par des étrangers,
sur la base des critères suivants :
(i)
le travail est lié à un programme de recherche, d’enseignement ou de formation,
(ii) un accès
limité au marché du travail au Canada est justifiable pour des raisons
d’intérêt public en rapport avec la compétitivité des établissements
universitaires ou de l’économie du Canada;
d) il est
d’ordre religieux ou charitable.
|
Citizenship and Immigration Canada, FW 1, Foreign Worker Manual
|
5.31. Canadian
Interests: Significant benefit—intra-company transferees R205(a), C12
A) General
The
intra-company category was created to permit international companies to
temporarily transfer qualified employees to Canada
for the purpose of improving management effectiveness, expanding Canadian
exports, and enhancing the competitiveness of Canadian entities in overseas
markets.
The entry of
intra-company transferees is guided by the IRPA regulations and the general
provisions of
this section, and is supplemented by provisions contained in international
trade
agreements for
citizens of signatory countries. Harmonization of IRPA and NAFTA
intra-company transferee provisions means that there are now no differences
in terms of entry requirements and work permit durations.
• Qualified
intra-company transferees require work permits and are LMO exempt under
R205(a), C12,
as they provide significant economic benefit to Canada through the transfer of their expertise to Canadian
businesses. This applies to foreign nationals from any country.
• Regulation
204(a) provides LMO exemption code T24 for qualified intra-company
transferees who are citizens of a country that has signed an international
agreement with Canada, namely NAFTA (and similar FTAs) and
the GATS, and supplements the IRPA general provisions.
General
requirements
Intra-company
transferees may apply for work permits under the general provision if they:
• are seeking
entry to work in a parent, subsidiary, branch, or affiliate of a
multi-national company;
• will be
undertaking employment at a legitimate and continuing establishment of that
company (where 18-24 months can be used as a reasonable minimum guideline);
• are taking a
position in a Executive, Senior Managerial, or Specialized Knowledge
capacity;
• have been
employed (via payroll or by contract) by the company outside Canada in a similar full-time position (not accumulated
part-time) for one year in the three-year period immediately preceding the
date of application. Extensions may be granted up to the 5 and 7 year maximums
referred to in the tables at the end of this section (5.31) and in the table
in section 11.2.
. . .
D) Qualifying
job positions
Executives and
senior managers
As in NAFTA,
this group includes persons in the senior executive or managerial categories,
in possession of a letter from a company conducting business in Canada, identifying the holder as an employee of a branch,
subsidiary, affiliate or parent of the company which is located outside Canada. The holder must be transferring to a Senior Executive or
Managerial level position at a permanent and continuing establishment of that
company in Canada for a temporary period.
Executive
capacity means that the employee primarily:
• directs the
management of the organization or a major component or function of the
organization;
• establishes
the goals and policies of the organization, component, or function;
• exercises
wide latitude in discretionary decision-making; and
• receives
only general supervision or direction from higher level executives, the board
of
directors, or
stockholders of the organization.
Managerial
capacity means that the employee primarily:
• manages the
organization, a department, subdivision, function, or component of the
organization;
• supervises
and controls the work of:
o other
managers or supervisors;
o professional
employees, or
o manages an
essential function within the organization, or a department or subdivision
of the
organization.
• has the
authority to hire and fire, or recommend these and other personnel actions,
such as promotion and leave authorization; if no other employee is directly
supervised, functions at a senior level within the organization hierarchy or
with respect to the function managed; and,
• exercises
discretion over the day-to-day operations of the activity or function for
which the employee has the authority.
In general,
executives and managers plan, organize, direct, or control the activities of
a business, or a division of a business (e.g. Vice President of Marketing),
either independently or through middle managers. They are frequently
responsible for the implementation of the policies of a business.
More senior
persons, either alone or in conjunction with a board of directors, may
formulate policies which establish the direction to be taken by the business.
|
5.31. Intérêts
canadiens : Avantage important – Personnes mutées à l’intérieur d’une société
R205a), C12
A) Généralités
La
catégorie des personnes mutées à l’intérieur d’une société a été créée pour
permettre aux
entreprises
internationales de muter temporairement des employés qualifiés au Canada afin
d’améliorer leur gestion, ’accroître leurs exportations canadiennes et de renforcer
la concurrence des entreprises canadiennes dans les marchés étrangers.
L’entrée
au Canada de personnes mutées à l'intérieur d'une société est basée sur le
Règlement de la LIPR et les dispositions générales de la présente section,
lesquelles sont complétées par les dispositions des accords commerciaux
internationaux pour les citoyens des pays signataires. L’harmonisation des
dispositions de la LIPR et de l’ALENA sur la mutation des personnes à
l’intérieur d’une société comprend les mêmes exigences concernant l’entrée au
Canada et la
durée des
permis de travail.
• Les
personnes mutées à l’intérieur d’une société qui sont admissibles doivent
obtenir un
permis de
travail et sont dispensées de l’AMT en vertu du R205a), code C12, parce
qu’elles
apportent des
avantages significatifs au Canada sur le plan économique, grâce au
transfert de
leur expertise
aux entreprises canadiennes. Cela comprend les ressortissants de tous les
pays.
•
Le R204a) prévoit une dispense d’AMT, correspondant au code de dispense T24,
pour les personnes mutées à l’intérieur d’une société qui sont citoyennes
d’un pays qui a conclu un
accord
international avec le Canada, à savoir l’ALENA (ainsi que d’autres ALE
similaires) et l’Accord général sur le commerce des services (GATS) et elle
complète les dispositions générales de la LIPR.
Exigences
générales
Les
personnes mutées à l'intérieur d'une société peuvent présenter une demande de
permis de
travail en
vertu des dispositions générales si elles :
• sollicitent
l'admission au Canada pour travailler dans une société mère,
une filiale, une
succursale ou
une société affiliée à une entreprise multinationale;
• occuperont
un emploi dans une installation légitime et constante de cette société (pour
laquelle une
affectation de 18 mois à 24 mois peut servir de minimum raisonnable);
•
veulent occuper un emploi en qualité de cadre de direction, de gestionnaire
principal ou de
travailleur
qui possède des connaissances spécialisées;
•
ont occupé un poste semblable (à titre permanent ou contractuel), dans la
société à l’étranger à temps plein (et non le cumul d’heures à temps
partiel), pendant un an au cours des trois années précédant immédiatement la
date de la demande; des prorogations peuvent être accordées jusqu’à cinq et
sept ans au maximum, comme l’indiquent les tableaux à la fin de cette section
(5.31) et le tableau de la section 11.2;
. . .
D) Postes
admissibles
Cadres de
direction et gestionnaires principaux
Comme
dans l’ALENA, ce groupe comprend les personnes qui font partie des catégories
d’emplois
de cadres de direction ou de gestionnaires, qui sont munies d'une lettre
d'une société qui exerce des activités au Canada, dans laquelle le titulaire
est identifié comme employé d’une succursale, d’une filiale ou d’une société
affiliée, ou de la société mère de l’entreprise établie à l'extérieur du
Canada. Le titulaire doit en outre être muté à un poste de cadre de direction
ou de gestionnaire permanent et continu de cette société au Canada pour une
période temporaire.
Par poste de
cadre de direction, on entend une affectation où l'employé exerce
principalement
les fonctions
suivantes :
• dirige
l'organisation elle-même ou une composante ou fonction importante de
celle-ci;
• fixe les
objectifs et établit les politiques de l'organisation ou d’une composante ou
d’une
fonction de
celle-ci;
•
exerce un grand pouvoir discrétionnaire dans la prise de décisions;
•
ne fait l'objet que d’une supervision ou d’une orientation générale de la
part de cadres
supérieurs, du
conseil d'administration ou d'actionnaires de l'entreprise.
Par poste de
gestionnaire, on entend un poste où l'employé :
• gère
l'organisation ou un service, une subdivision, une fonction ou une composante
de celle-ci;
• supervise et
contrôle le travail d'autres employés (superviseurs, professionnels ou
gestionnaires)
ou gère une fonction essentielle, un service ou une subdivision de
l'organisation;
• a
le pouvoir d'embaucher et de licencier ou de recommander ces mesures et
d'autres en
matière
de ressources humaines (comme la promotion et l'autorisation de congés);
lorsqu'il ne supervise directement aucun autre employé, il exerce des
fonctions de niveau supérieur dans
la hiérarchie
de l'organisation ou par rapport à la fonction qu'il gère;
•
exerce un pouvoir discrétionnaire sur les opérations courantes de l'activité
ou de la function dont il est chargé.
En
général, les cadres de direction et les gestionnaires planifient, organisent,
dirigent ou contrôlent les activités d’une entreprise ou de la division d’une
entreprise (par exemple, le vice-président du marketing) de façon
indépendante ou par l’entremise de cadres intermédiaires. Ils sont souvent
chargés de la mise en oeuvre des politiques d’une entreprise. De nombreuses
personnes qui ont de telles fonctions peuvent, seules ou avec un conseil
d’administration, élaborer des politiques sur l’orientation de l’entreprise.
|
Email this Content