Date: 20070123
Docket: IMM-4082-06
Citation: 2007 FC 69
Ottawa,
Ontario,
January 23, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
AMARJEET
SINGH
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 a visa officer, dated May 26, 2006, refusing the applicant’s
application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker.
[2]
For the following reasons, I am satisfied that this
application for judicial review should be allowed.
BACKGROUND
[3]
Mr.
Singh (the applicant) is a citizen of India whose occupation is
that of Sikh priest.
[4]
The
applicant first arrived in Canada on a visitor’s visa on December 31, 2002. He
was also issued a visitor’s record allowing him to temporarily perform
religious duties in Edmonton, Alberta, and requiring him to
depart by June 30, 2005. On October 21, 2004, his application for a permanent
resident visa as a skilled worker was received at the Immigration Regional Program Center in Buffalo, New York.
[5]
On May 26, 2006, his application was denied by Nora Egan
(the visa officer), on the ground that he did not meet the requirements for
immigration to Canada
under the skilled worker class.
[6]
Skilled worker applicants are assessed under the criteria
set out at subsection 76(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the Regulations) and require a minimum of 67 points to qualify for
immigration. The visa officer awarded the applicant 10 out of 10 points on the
age factor, 20 out of 25 points for education and 21 out of 21 points for his
experience. Only 8 points out of 24 were awarded for official language
proficiency, and no points were awarded for either adaptability or arranged
employment. With a total of 59 points, the applicant fell short of the required
67 points needed to satisfy the visa officer that he could become economically
established in Canada.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
[7]
In this application for judicial review, the following
issues must be considered:
A)
Should the applicant be permitted to introduce in these
proceedings evidence not before the visa officer?
B)
Did the visa officer make a reviewable error by denying the
applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[8]
It
is well established in law that the decision of a visa officer whether or not
to grant a permanent resident visa is a discretionary decision based
essentially on a factual assessment. As the Federal
Court of Appeal held in Jang v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1575,
2001 FCA 312 at paragraph 12:
An application to be
admitted to Canada as an immigrant gives rise to a discretionary decision on the part of a
visa officer, which is required to be made on the basis of specific statutory
criteria. Where that statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and
in accordance with the principles of natural justice and where reliance has not
been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory
purpose, courts should not interfere (Maple Lodge Farms Limited v.
Government of Canada et al [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at
pages 7-8; To v. Canada, [1996] F.C.J. No. 696
(F.C.A.).
[9]
In Kniazeva
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 336, 2006 FC 268, Justice Yves de Montigny recognized that
patent unreasonableness was the proper standard to review a visa officer’s
decision on an application for a permanent resident visa under the skilled
worker class. He noted at paragraph 15:
[…] This Court
has consistently held that the particular expertise of visa officers dictates a
deferential approach when reviewing their decisions. There is no doubt in my
mind that the assessment of an Applicant for permanent residence under the
Federal Skilled Worker Class is an exercise of discretion that should be given
a high degree of deference. To the extent that this assessment has been done in
good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice applicable,
and without relying on irrelevant or extraneous considerations, the decision of
the visa officer should be reviewed on the standard of patent unreasonableness:
Postolati v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 345,
2003 FCT 251; Singh
v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 441,
2003 FCT 312; Nehme
v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2004] F.C.J. No. 49, 2004 FC 64; Bellido
v. Canada (M.C.I.),2005 FC 452, [2005] F.C.J. No. 572
(QL).
[10]
However, where concerns are raised over an alleged breach of
procedural fairness, the proper standard of review is correctness. If this
Court determines a breach of procedural fairness occurred, it must return the
decision to the first instance decision-maker for a re-determination (Canadian
Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539).
ANALYSIS
A) Should the
applicant be permitted to introduce in these proceedings evidence not before
the visa officer?
[11]
Before turning to the merit of the application, I must
first address the applicant’s attempt to introduce in these proceedings
evidence not before the visa officer. More specifically, the applicant seeks to
introduce as evidence an email reply allegedly received by a co-worker of the
applicant, from the Ministerial Enquiries Division of Citizenship and
Immigration Canada.
[12]
It is settled law that, barring exceptional circumstances,
evidence that was not before the decision-maker is not admissible before the
Court in a judicial review proceeding (Asafov v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 713).
As Justice Gilles Létourneau held in Bekker v. Canada, [2004] F.C.J. No. 819 (2004),
2004 FCA 186, at paragraph 11:
Judicial review proceedings are limited in scope. They are
not trial de novo proceedings whereby determination of new issues can be made
on the basis of freshly adduced evidence. As Rothstein J.A. said in Gitxsan
Treaty Society v. Hospital Employees' Union, [2000] 1 F.C. 135, at
paragraph 15, "the essential purpose of judicial review is the review of
decisions" and, I would add, to merely ascertain their legality: see also Offshore
Logistics Inc. v. Intl. Longshoremen's Assoc. 269 (2000), 257 N.R. 338 (F.C.A.).
This is the reason why, barring exceptional circumstances such as bias or
jurisdictional questions, which may not appear on the record, the reviewing
Court is bound by and limited to the record that was before the judge or the
Board. Fairness to the parties and the court or tribunal under review dictates
such a limitation.
[13]
The question therefore becomes whether there are
exceptional circumstances in this case that would permit the introduction of
this new evidence. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion
that the applicant should be allowed to submit this new evidence.
[14]
While the email in question was sent to a third party and
does not include the original inquiry, nor refers to the applicant in any way, it
discloses information that is highly relevant to this case, as it concerns the
interpretation by Citizenship and Immigration Canada of a section of the
Regulations, which is contrary to that of the visa officer.
[15]
More importantly, the fact that this evidence was not
before the decision-maker may not be entirely relevant in this case. While it
was the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that he meets the
requirements of the Act and the Regulations to be awarded a permanent resident
visa, it was not the responsibility of the applicant to explain to the visa
officer what those requirements entail. In other words, it was not the
applicant’s responsibility to pass along to the visa officer the reply from the
Ministerial Enquiries Division stating that priests are exempt from the
requirement to have their job offer validated by the Department of Human Resources and
Skills Development Canada (now Human Resources and Social Development Canada or
“HRSDC”) and that they should still be granted points for
arranged employment if they can show a properly prepared job offer. If that is
indeed the proper interpretation of the Regulations, something that I will consider
in the next section, then the applicant was entitled to assume that the visa
officer would know it and to feel confident that there was no need to submit
this email in support of his application.
B) Did the
visa officer make a reviewable error by denying the applicant’s application for
a permanent resident visa?
[16]
Turning now to the substance of the visa officer’s
decision, the applicant submits that the visa officer failed to properly
interpret the Act and the Regulations in awarding 0 points for arranged
employment and 0 points for adaptability. The applicant maintains that he
should have received 5 points for adaptability by virtue of his previous
employment in Canada, and that he should have
been awarded 10 points for arranged employment. The offer of employment
submitted to the visa officer should have been sufficient to award these points
as religious workers do not require a work permit to be allowed to work in Canada.
[17]
The respondent for his part maintains that while religious
workers are temporarily exempt from requiring work permits to perform religious
duties in Canada, they are not eligible to
receive additional points for arranged employment or adaptability because they
do not hold work permits.
[18]
On the first issue of adaptability, subsection 83(4) of the
Regulations clearly states that 5 points will be awarded in cases where the
applicant or accompanying
spouse / common-law partner engaged in at least one year of full-time work in Canada “under a work permit”. On
the second issue of arranged employment, section 82 of the Regulations sets out
a number of scenarios for what may be considered ‘arranged employment’, each
requiring that the applicant either hold a valid work permit or, in the
situation where the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada prior to
obtaining his permanent resident visa, an offer of employment in Canada that
has been validated by HRSDC.
[19]
The applicant is correct
in noting that he was exempt from the requirement to obtain a work permit
before coming to Canada to work as a Sikh priest as per subsection 186(l) of
the Regulations. That being said, no further accommodations are made in the
Regulations that would grant special privileges for workers that meet the
requirements of section 186, when applying for a permanent resident visa. Given
the various scenarios considered under section 82 of the Regulations to be
awarded points for arranged employment, had such an exemption been contemplated
by the Canadian Government, it could easily have been included in the
Regulations. The applicant argues that no such accommodations were made because
the occupations listed under section 186 have already been determined to have a
“neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada”, as required to
issue a work permit under section 203 of the Regulations, and thus an exemption
is implied from a joint reading of sections 186, 203 and 82 of the Regulations.
With no evidence submitted to support such an interpretation of the
Regulations, I find no merit to this argument.
[20]
Furthermore, a cursory look through the occupations listed
in section 186 is sufficient to determine that the exemption from the
requirement to hold a work permit is meant to accommodate those whose stay in Canada is
temporary and dictated by the nature of their work, and does not reflect a
desire to establish themselves in Canada. The
categories listed in section 186 include business visitors, foreign
representatives, students, performing artists, foreign correspondents and
athletes taking part in competition held in Canada.
[21]
As
it is clear on the face of the record that the applicant possessed neither a
work permit nor an offer of employment validated by HRSDC, the decision of the
visa officer not to grant the applicant any points for adaptability or arranged
employment, and ultimately to refuse the applicant a permanent resident visa, was
reasonable, pursuant to the existing Regulations.
[22]
That
being said, it would appear that, at the time the applicant submitted his
application for permanent residence, there was confusion at Citizenship and
Immigration Canada concerning the proper awarding of points for arranged
employment for priests whose job offers were not validated by HRSDC, as
evidenced by the contradiction between the affidavit of the visa officer and
the email reply submitted by the applicant, in which the Ministerial Enquiries
Division stated that, if you are a priest applying under the skilled worker class:
You do not need to have your job offer
validated by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). However,
you should ensure that you obtain a proper job offer from your employer.
Instructions for preparing a proper job offer may be found on the Citizenship
and Immigration Canada (CIC) Web site […] Despite the fact that HRSDC
validation is not necessary, your employer may wish to have your job offer
validated as an assurance that it is a genuine job offer.
If you include a properly prepared job
offer with your application, you will received [sic] the points for arrange
employment. [emphasis
added]
[23]
This contradiction is sufficient to raise serious concerns
that all individuals applying for permanent residence in Canada under circumstances similar to that of the applicant may
not be treated alike, a situation contrary to the rules of procedural fairness.
[24]
On
this basis alone, the judicial review will be granted and the decision will be
sent back to another visa officer for re-determination. While I do believe that
the interpretation of the Regulations by the visa officer was the correct one,
the appearance of unequal treatment that arising from the existence of this
email is sufficient to justify that this decision be set aside, in order to
protect the applicant’s right to procedural fairness.
[25]
Furthermore,
I would like to add that I strongly encourage the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration Canada to clarify the guidelines concerning the allocation of
points in permanent residence applications, for both arranged employment and
adaptability, for individuals who are permitted to work in Canada without a
work permit under section 186 and who later seek to become permanent residents
under the skilled worker class. As demonstrated by this case, it is important
that all visa officers and all other employees of Citizenship and Immigration
Canada be given the same instructions concerning the interpretation of the Act,
so that all applicants under the Act may be treated fairly. This is not the
first time that the Court has had to deal with this particular issue, which
makes the need for clarification from the Minister all the more relevant.
[26]
For
the above reasons, this judicial review is granted and the application will be
sent back to a different visa officer for re-determination, in light of the
reasons provided by this Court.
JUDGMENT
1.
The
application is allowed;
2.
The decision of the visa officer is set aside and the matter
is referred back for re-determination;
3.
Neither counsel suggested questions for certification.
“Pierre Blais”
ANNEX
PERTINENT
LEGISLATION
Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
12.
(2) A foreign national may be selected as a member of the economic class on
the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada.
|
12. (2) La sélection des étrangers de
la catégorie « immigration économique » se fait en fonction de leur
capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada.
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227
|
75. (1) For the purposes
of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the federal skilled worker class is hereby
prescribed as a class of persons who are skilled workers and who may become
permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically
established in Canada and who intend to reside in a province other than the
Province of Quebec.
(2)
A foreign national is a skilled worker if
(a) within the 10 years
preceding the date of their application for a permanent resident visa, they
have at least one year of continuous full-time employment experience, as
described in subsection 80(7), or the equivalent in continuous part-time
employment in one or more occupations, other than a restricted occupation,
that are listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B
of the National Occupational Classification matrix;
(b) during that period of
employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the
occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National
Occupational Classification; and
(c) during that period of
employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the
occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National
Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties.
(3) If the
foreign national fails to meet the requirements of subsection (2), the
application for a permanent resident visa shall be refused and no further
assessment is required.
76. (1) For the purpose of determining whether a
skilled worker, as a member of the federal skilled worker class, will be able
to become economically established in Canada, they must be assessed on the
basis of the following criteria:
(a) the skilled worker must
be awarded not less than the minimum number of required points referred to in
subsection (2) on the basis of the following factors, namely,
(i) education, in accordance
with section 78,
(ii) proficiency in the
official languages of Canada, in accordance with section 79,
(iii) experience, in accordance
with section 80,
(iv) age, in accordance with
section 81,
(v) arranged employment, in
accordance with section 82, and
(vi) adaptability, in
accordance with section 83; and
(b) the skilled worker must
(i) have in the form of
transferable and available funds, unencumbered by debts or other obligations,
an amount equal to half the minimum necessary income applicable in respect of
the group of persons consisting of the skilled worker and their family
members, or
(ii) be awarded the number of
points referred to in subsection 82(2) for arranged employment in Canada
within the meaning of subsection 82(1).
82. (1) In this section, “arranged employment”
means an offer of indeterminate employment in Canada.
(2)
Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in
Canada in an occupation that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations
or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification
matrix if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out the
employment and
(a) the skilled worker is in
Canada and holds a work permit and
(i) there has been a
determination by an officer under section 203 that the performance of the
employment by the skilled worker would be likely to result in a neutral or
positive effect on the labour market in Canada,
(ii) the skilled worker is
currently working in that employment,
(iii) the work permit is valid
at the time an application is made by the skilled worker for a permanent
resident visa as well as at the time the permanent resident visa, if any, is
issued to the skilled worker, and
(iv) the employer has made an
offer to employ the skilled worker on an indeterminate basis once the
permanent resident visa is issued to the skilled worker;
(b) the skilled worker is in
Canada and holds a work permit referred to in paragraph 204(a) or 205(a)
or subparagraph 205(c)(ii) and the circumstances referred to in
subparagraphs (a)(ii) to (iv) apply;
(c) the skilled worker does
not intend to work in Canada before being issued a permanent resident visa
and does not hold a work permit and
(i) the employer has made an
offer to employ the skilled worker on an indeterminate basis once the
permanent resident visa is issued to the skilled worker, and
(ii) an officer has approved
that offer of employment based on an opinion provided to the officer by the
Department of Human Resources Development at the request of the employer or
an officer that
(A) the offer of employment is
genuine,
(B) the employment is not
part-time or seasonal employment, and
(C) the wages offered to the
skilled worker are consistent with the prevailing wage rate for the
occupation and the working conditions meet generally accepted Canadian
standards; or
(d) the skilled worker holds
a work permit and
(i) the circumstances referred
to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iv) and paragraph (b) do not
apply, and
(ii) the circumstances referred
to in subparagraphs (c)(i) and (ii) apply.
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:
(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;
[…]
(4) For the
purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a skilled worker shall be awarded 5
points if they or their accompanying spouse or accompanying common-law
partner engaged in at least one year of full-time work in Canada under a work
permit.
186. A foreign national may work in Canada without
a work permit
[…]
(l) as a
person who is responsible for assisting a congregation or group in the
achievement of its spiritual goals and whose main duties are to preach
doctrine, perform functions related to gatherings of the congregation or
group or provide spiritual counselling;
|
75. (1) Pour
l’application du paragraphe 12(2) de la Loi, la catégorie des travailleurs
qualifiés (fédéral) est une catégorie réglementaire de personnes qui peuvent
devenir résidents permanents du fait de leur capacité à réussir leur
établissement économique au Canada, qui sont des travailleurs qualifiés et
qui cherchent à s’établir dans une province autre que le Québec.
(2) Est un
travailleur qualifié l’étranger qui satisfait aux exigences suivantes :
a) il a
accumulé au moins une année continue d’expérience de travail à temps plein au
sens du paragraphe 80(7), ou l’équivalent s’il travaille à temps partiel de
façon continue, au cours des dix années qui ont précédé la date de
présentation de la demande de visa de résident permanent, dans au moins une
des professions appartenant aux genre de compétence 0 Gestion ou niveaux de
compétences A ou B de la matrice de la Classification nationale des
professions — exception faite des professions d’accès limité;
b) pendant
cette période d’emploi, il a accompli l’ensemble des tâches figurant dans
l’énoncé principal établi pour la profession dans les descriptions des
professions de cette classification;
c) pendant
cette période d’emploi, il a exercé une partie appréciable des fonctions
principales de la profession figurant dans les descriptions des professions
de cette classification, notamment toutes les fonctions essentielles.
(3)
Si l’étranger ne satisfait pas aux exigences prévues au paragraphe (2),
l’agent met fin à l’examen de la demande de visa de résident permanent et la
refuse.
76. (1) Les critères
ci-après indiquent que le travailleur qualifié peut réussir son établissement
économique au Canada à titre de membre de la catégorie des travailleurs
qualifiés (fédéral) :
a) le
travailleur qualifié accumule le nombre minimum de points visé au paragraphe
(2), au titre des facteurs suivants :
(i) les études, aux
termes de l’article 78,
(ii) la compétence
dans les langues officielles du Canada, aux termes de l’article 79,
(iii) l’expérience,
aux termes de l’article 80,
(iv) l’âge, aux
termes de l’article 81,
(v) l’exercice d’un
emploi réservé, aux termes de l’article 82,
(vi) la capacité
d’adaptation, aux termes de l’article 83;
b) le
travailleur qualifié :
(i) soit dispose de
fonds transférables — non grevés de dettes ou d’autres obligations
financières — d’un montant égal à la moitié du revenu vital minimum qui lui
permettrait de subvenir à ses propres besoins et à ceux des membres de sa
famille,
(ii) soit s’est vu
attribuer le nombre de points prévu au paragraphe 82(2) pour un emploi
réservé au Canada au sens du paragraphe 82(1).
82. (1) Pour l’application du
présent article, constitue un emploi réservé toute offre d’emploi au Canada à
durée indéterminée.
(2) Dix points sont
attribués au travailleur qualifié pour un emploi réservé appartenant au genre
de compétence 0 Gestion ou niveaux de compétences A ou B de la matrice de la Classification
nationale des professions, s’il est en mesure d’exercer les fonctions de
l’emploi et s’il est vraisemblable qu’il acceptera de les exercer, et que
l’un des alinéas suivants s’applique :
a) le
travailleur qualifié se trouve au Canada, il est titulaire d’un permis de
travail et les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i) l’agent a
conclu, au titre de l’article 203, que l’exécution du travail par le
travailleur qualifié est susceptible d’entraîner des effets positifs ou
neutres sur le marché du travail canadien,
(ii) le travailleur
qualifié occupe actuellement cet emploi réservé,
(iii) le permis de
travail est valide au moment de la présentation de la demande de visa de
résident permanent et au moment de la délivrance du visa de résident
permanent, le cas échéant,
(iv) l’employeur a
présenté au travailleur qualifié une offre d’emploi d’une durée indéterminée
sous réserve de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent;
b) le
travailleur qualifié se trouve au Canada, il est titulaire du permis de
travail visé aux alinéas 204a) ou 205a) ou au sous-alinéa 205c)(ii)
et les conditions visées aux sous-alinéas a)(ii) à (iv) sont réunies;
c) le
travailleur qualifié n’a pas l’intention de travailler au Canada avant qu’un
visa de résident permanent ne lui soit octroyé, il n’est pas titulaire d’un
permis de travail et les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i) l’employeur a
présenté au travailleur qualifié une offre d’emploi d’une durée indéterminée
sous réserve de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent,
(ii) un agent a
approuvé cette offre sur le fondement d’un avis émis par le ministère du
Développement des ressources humaines, à la demande de l’employeur, à sa
demande ou à celle d’un autre agent, où il est affirmé que :
(A) l’offre d’emploi
est véritable,
(B) l’emploi n’est
pas saisonnier ou à temps partiel,
(C) la rémunération
offerte au travailleur qualifié est conforme au taux de rémunération en
vigueur pour la profession et les conditions de l’emploi satisfont aux normes
canadiennes généralement acceptées;
d) le
travailleur qualifié est titulaire d’un permis de travail et, à la
fois :
(i) les conditions
visées aux sous-alinéas a)(i) à (iv) et à l’alinéa b) ne sont
pas remplies,
(ii) les conditions
visées aux sous-alinéas c)(i) et (ii) sont réunies.
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 :
c) pour du
travail antérieur effectué par le travailleur qualifié ou son époux ou
conjoint de fait au Canada, 5 points;
[…]
4)
Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)c), le travailleur qualifié obtient
5 points si lui ou, dans le cas où il l’accompagne, son époux ou conjoint de
fait a travaillé à temps plein au Canada pendant au moins un an au titre d’un
permis de travail.
186. L’étranger peut travailler
au Canada sans permis de travail :
[…]
l) à titre
de personne chargée d’aider une communauté ou un groupe à atteindre ses
objectifs spirituels et dont les fonctions consistent principalement à
prêcher une doctrine, à exercer des fonctions relatives aux rencontres de
cette communauté ou de ce groupe ou à donner des conseils d’ordre spirituel;
|
Email this Content