Date:
20130110
Docket:
IMM-5228-12
Citation:
2013 FC 17
Montréal, Quebec,
January 10, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
KHALID BAZAID
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
The
Applicant is both educated at a Canadian university and trained clinically in
hospitals in Canada in psychiatry, thus, medical specialization with recognized
clinical experience in Canada. The Applicant, as a medical specialist, is also
acknowledged as an accredited fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and
Surgeons of Canada. The evidence specifies that the Applicant has worked abroad
as a psychiatrist and as a specialist in a subspecialty in psychiatry. As per
the evidence on its very face, the Applicant has worked as a psychiatrist
clinically in the last number of years as specified in uncontradicted evidence
with an included certificate of good standing from a hospital abroad (all of
which is included in the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] from pp 58 to 62).
[2]
If
educated, trained and recognized as a specialist in the field in Canada by
accreditation from an acknowledged Canadian professional entity, responsible
for that accreditation, with a recent certificate in good standing to his name
in respect of work in his specialization, it would stand to reason that the Applicant’s
Canadian education, training, accreditation and continued work in the field be
assessed in furtherance of the requirements and goals of Canada in attempting
to recruit permanent residents to fulfil Canada’s growing and often urgent
needs.
II. Introduction
[3]
The
Applicant seeks judicial review of the refusal of an Immigration Officer to
process his application for permanent residence under the federal skilled
worker class. In particular, the Applicant challenges the Immigration Officer’s
decision that he did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he met
the occupational requirements for National Occupation Classification 3111 –
Specialist Physicians [NOC 3111 class].
III. Judicial Procedure
[4]
This
is an application for judicial review of the Immigration Officer’s decision,
dated May 24, 2012, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
IV. Background
[5]
The
Applicant, Dr. Khalid Bazaid, is a citizen of Saudi Arabia who was born in
1965.
[6]
In
1990, the Applicant received a medical degree from the King Faisal University
in Saudi Arabia.
[7]
In
January 1992, the Applicant completed a two-year residency in Saudi Arabia.
[8]
Until
1994, the Applicant worked full time as a general practitioner with the Saudi
Arabian Oil Company [Saudi Aramco].
[9]
In
1994, the Applicant came to Canada to complete a four-year residency in
Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa.
[10]
The
Applicant completed his Psychiatry residency in 1998 and a two-year
subspecialty program in Child Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa in 2000.
[11]
From
1998 to 2002, the Applicant was employed as a psychiatrist by Saudi Aramco.
[12]
In
2002, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada [College] granted
the Applicant a specialty certificate in Psychiatry. Since August 31, 2002, the
Applicant has been a fellow of the College.
[13]
On
September 23, 2002, the Applicant completed a clinical fellowship in child and
adolescent psychology at the University of Ottawa.
[14]
Since
2002, the Applicant has worked as a specialist psychiatrist and consultant in
Saudi Arabia. He states that, since 1998, he has performed the main duties
required for the NOC 3111 class, including: (i) diagnosing and treating
diseases and psychiatric disorders; (ii) ordering laboratory tests and other
diagnostic procedures; (iii) prescribing medication and treatment and referring
patients for surgery; and, (iv) acting as a consultant to other physicians.
[15]
In
January 2012, the Applicant applied to be selected for permanent residence as a
member of the federal skilled worker class under the NOC 3111 class [PR
Application].
[16]
On
May 24, 2012, the Immigration Officer determined that the Applicant was not
eligible to have his PR Application processed.
V. Decision under Review
[17]
The
Immigration Officer refused to process the Applicant’s PR Application to be
selected as a member of the federal skilled worker class pursuant to subsection
12(2) of the IRPA and subsection 75(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations]. In the
Immigration Officer’s view, the Applicant presented insufficient evidence to
establish that he met the criteria for the NOC 3111 class specified in the
Ministerial Instructions [MI-3] established pursuant to subsection 87.3(3) of
the IRPA and published in the Canada Gazette on June 25, 2011.
[18]
The
Immigration Officer reasoned that MI-3 provides that applications under the NOC
3111 class are processed only if they include (i) an arranged employment offer
[AEO] consistent with subsection 82(2) of the Regulations, or (ii)
evidence of experience in the last ten (10) years.
[19]
The
Immigration Officer determined that the Applicant did not produce evidence of
an AEO or candidacy in a doctoral program.
[20]
Nor,
according to the Immigration Officer, did the Applicant produce sufficient
evidence of work experience in the NOC 3111 class in the past ten (10) years.
The Immigration Officer relied on the lead statement and list of main duties
for the NOC 3111 class set forth in the occupational description for the NOC
3111 class [NOC document] to determine whether the Applicant had sufficient
evidence to establish work experience. The Applicant’s evidence did not
demonstrate that he had performed the actions described in the lead statement
or substantial number of the main duties in the NOC document.
[21]
Consequently,
the Immigration Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant met the
requirements of MI-3 and refused to process the application.
VI. Issues
[22]
(1)
Was the Immigration Officer’s assessment of the evidence reasonable?
(2) Was the
Immigration Officer’s application of the NOC document reasonable?
VII. Relevant Legislative
Provisions
[23]
Reference
is made to Annex “A” for the relevant legislative provisions of the IRPA.
[24]
Reference
is also made to Annex “B” for the relevant provisions of MI-3.
[25]
In
addition, the Court refers to Annex “C” for the relevant sections of the NOC
document.
VIII. Position of the Parties
[26]
The
Applicant submits that the Immigration Officer assessed his evidence
unreasonably and applied the NOC document incorrectly.
[27]
On
the first issue, the Applicant states that he submitted the following evidence
in support of his PR Application: (i) his diplomas and university certificates;
(ii) a letter from Saudi Aramco attesting to his job positions between 1983 and
2009; (iii) a service certificate from King Fahad Specialist Hospital in Dammam
stating that his last position was as a consultant adult psychiatrist; (iv) an
attestation from Medicare Specialist Clinics in Saudi Arabia stating that he
has worked as a consultant child and adolescent psychiatrist since May 2009;
(v) a letter from King Fahad University College of Medicine in Saudi Arabia
stating that he has been an assistant professor and consultant to the
Department of Psychiatry since May 2010; and; (vi) evidence that he has been a
registered fellow of the College since August 2002.
[28]
The
Applicant argues that his evidence establishes that he is a specialist
physician with extensive experience in Canada and Saudi Arabia and that he
satisfies the requirements in MI-3 and the NOC document. According to the
Applicant, the NOC document does not entail duties that would not be performed
by someone with his particular specialized training and work experience. Citing
Taleb v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 384,
the Applicant argues that the NOC document does not refer to “duties other than
those which are usually performed by general practitioners or specialist
physicians all over the world, that is, making diagnoses and treating their
patients, ordering laboratory tests or other diagnostic procedures, prescribing
medication, acting as a consultant for other physicians or occasionally
conducting research” (at para 36).
[29]
The Respondent
submits that the Immigration Officer was reasonable in assessing the
Applicant’s evidence and in applying the NOC document.
[30]
The
Respondent refers this Court to the Affidavit of Florence Chiasson and submits
that the following was not before the Immigration Officer: (i) the Applicant’s
diploma recognizing that he completed a Psychiatry residency at the University
of Ottawa; (ii) the Applicant’s diploma recognizing that he completed a subspecialty
program in Child Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa; and, (iii) the
Applicant’s diploma recognizing that he completed a fellowship in Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa. Citing Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency
(Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, the Respondent observes that the
evidentiary record before this Court is restricted to evidence before the
Immigration Officer.
[31]
The
Respondent argues that the Immigration Officer was tasked with assessing
whether the Applicant’s work experience in the past ten (10) years was
sufficient to meet the requirements of MI-3. The Respondent submits that the
letters from Saudi Aramco, a Saudi oil company, indicate that the Applicant held
the position of Psychiatrist (Child and Adolescent) from 2002 to 2009 but
stresses that these letters do not outline what duties the Applicant performed
while he was employed by the oil company. The Respondent states that the
certificate from the King Saud University establishes that the Applicant worked
as Assistant Professor and Consultant to the Department of Psychiatry since 2010
but did not outline the scope of his duties; moreover, the Respondent submits
that this certificate suggests that the Applicant worked in an academic
capacity and does not suggest that the Applicant performed the duties specified
by the Occupational Description. The certificate from the Medicare Specialist
Clinics in Saudi Arabia, the Service Certificate from the King Fahad Specialist
Hospital in Dammam, and the Certificate of Good Standing from the King Fahad
Specialist Hospital in Dammam also state that the Applicant worked as a
Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist (since May 2009), a Consultant
Adult Psychiatrist (in 2009-2010), and continued as a Consultant Adult
Psychiatrist. The Respondent argues that these documents provided insufficient
evidence for the Immigration Officer to determine if the Applicant’s positions
entailed the performance of the main duties in the NOC document.
[32]
Citing
Talpur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 25
and Pan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 838,
the Respondent submits that the Applicant had the burden of satisfying the
Immigration Officer that he performed the duties outlined in the NOC document
and that the Immigration Officer had no legal obligation to request
clarification of a deficient PR Application. According to the Respondent, the
documents submitted with the PR Application lacked sufficient detail for the
Immigration Officer to determine if it satisfied the legal tests.
[33]
The
Respondent further submits that this Application is distinguishable from Taleb,
above, where the applicant provided documents establishing her educational
credentials and documentary evidence showing that, in the relevant ten (10)
year period, she had performed the main duties of a practicing specialist
physician outlined in the NOC document. In particular, the Respondent submits
that the applicant in Taleb provided a work certificate stating that she
“performs the function of physician assigned to the oncology department”, a
work certificate stating that she “has been practicing as a specialist
physician assigned to the medical oncology department”, a certificate stating
that she “performed the functions of ... [a] category A resident, in the
department of medicine ... providing in-patient care” (at para 7). Emphasizing
the use of the verb “to perform” in Taleb to describe the applicant’s
duties, the Respondent submits that the Applicant has not presented comparable
evidence sufficient to establish that he actually performed diagnostic and
treatment work. By contrast, the Respondent reads the evidence to suggest that
the Applicant was a consultant, academic, or oil company employee.
[34]
In
the Respondent’s submissions, the facts in this Application are analogous to
those in Tabañag v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2011 FC 1293, where Justice Richard Mosley held that evidence of academic qualifications,
a job title, and correspondence addressing the applicant by that title was
insufficient to establish that he had performed a substantial number of the
main duties of an architect.
[35]
In
his Reply, the Applicant states that he did present the documents establishing
his specialty residency training with his PR Application. As a result, the
Applicant submits that the documents should be considered by this Court as part
of the evidentiary record.
IX. Analysis
Standard of
Review
[36]
The
standard of review that applies to an immigration officer's assessment of
evidence submitted to support an application for permanent residence under the
federal skilled worker category is that of reasonableness. This standard also
applies to the application of the NOC document to the evidence (Taleb,
above).
[37]
Under
the standard of reasonableness, this Court may only intervene if the
Immigration Officer’s reasons are not “justified, transparent or intelligible”.
A reasonable decision must fall within the “range of possible, acceptable
outcomes ... defensible in respect of the facts and law" (Dunsmuir v
New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 47).
[38]
Under
subsection 87.3(2) of the IRPA, the processing of permanent resident
applications must be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the
Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals established
by the federal government. Paragraph 87.3(3)(d) of the IRPA
authorizes the Minister to give instructions on processing applications,
including instructions providing for their disposition. Ministerial
instructions, under subsection 87.3(6) of the IRPA, must be published in
the Canada Gazette.
[39]
The
MI-3 was published in the Canada Gazette on June 25, 2011 in accordance
with subsection 87.3(6), and came into force on July 1, 2011.
[40]
According
to the MI-3, federal skilled worker applications after July 1, 2011, must be
processed if they (i) are submitted with an AEO consistent with 82(2) of the IRPA;
or, (ii) contain evidence of experience in the last ten years under the NOC
3111 class. The MI-3 also provides that NOC 3111 class applicants must have one
year of continuous full-time or equivalent paid work experience in the NOC 3111
class. According to the MI-3, an applicant’s work experience must reflect the actions
described in the lead statement and include the performance of a substantial
number of the main duties and all of the essential duties described in the NOC
document.
[41]
The
NOC document states that the NOC 3111 class includes specialist physicians in
clinical medicine, laboratory medicine, and surgery. According to the lead
statement in the NOC document, a specialist in clinical medicine diagnoses and
treats diseases and physiological or psychiatric disorders and acts as a
consultant to other physicians. The lead statement in the NOC document further
states that specialists in clinical medicine usually work in private practice
or in a hospital and that residents in training to become specialist physicians
are included in the NOC 3111 class.
[42]
The
NOC document outlines the main duties for clinical medicine specialists in the
NOC 3111 class: (i) diagnosing and treating diseases and physiological or
psychiatric disorders; (ii) ordering laboratory tests, X-rays, and other
diagnostic procedures; (iii) prescribing medication and treatment and referring
patients for surgery; (iv) acting as consultants to other physicians; and, (v)
possibly conducting medical research.
[43]
The
determinative issue is whether the Applicant’s evidence that he worked as a
Psychiatrist was insufficient to establish that he met the requirements of the
MI-3 since that evidence did not outline the specific duties he performed as a
Psychiatrist. This issue requires this Court to assess the reasonability of the
Immigration Officer’s assessment of the evidence and the application of the NOC
document. In considering this determinative issue, it is thus helpful to
address the issues alleged by the Applicant together.
[44]
In
Schedule 3 of his PR Application, the Applicant stated that he worked as a Psychiatrist
since September 1998. The Applicant stated that he performed the following
duties as a Psychiatrist: (i) diagnosing diseases; (ii) acting as a consultant
to other physicians; (iii) ordering laboratory tests; (iv) treating psychiatric
disorders; and, (v) prescribing treatment and medication (CTR at p 37).
[45]
The
Applicant presented the following evidence to support his claims in Schedule 3:
a. An End of
Service Certificate stating that the Applicant was an employee of Saudi Aramco
from August 2, 1983 to March 8, 2009 and that he was classified as a “Chf
Med/Dental Svc”, dated April 11, 2009;
b. An End of
Service Certificate stating that the Applicant was employed by Saudi Aramco as
a Physician (February 1, 1992 - April 30, 1994), Psychiatrist
(September 1, 1998 - November 10, 2002), and Psychiatrist – Child &
Adolescent (November 11, 2002 - March 8, 2009), dated April 11, 2009;
c. A letter from
the King Saud University College of Medicine and the King Khalid University
Hospital stating that the Applicant was Assistant Professor and Consultant at
the Department of Psychiatry since May 25, 2010, dated May 22, 2011;
d. A letter from
the Medicare Specialist Clinics stating that the Applicant was a Consultant
Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist since May 2009;
e. A Service Certificate
from the King Fahad Specialist Hospital in Dammam stating that the Applicant
was a Consultant Adult Psychiatrist, dated August 21, 2010;
f. A Certificate of
Good Standing from the King Fahad Specialist Hospital in Dammam stating that
the Applicant was a Consultant Adult Psychiatrist in the Adult Mental Health
Department from September 5, 2009 to August 23, 2010, dated October 19, 2010;
g. A Certificate
from the College that the Applicant is a Fellow of the College, dated October
9, 2002; and,
h. A Specialist
Certificate from the College stating that the Applicant is proficient in the
specialty of Psychiatry, dated August 31, 2002.
(CTR at pp 57 to 70).
[46]
The
lead statement and list of main duties in the NOC document describe a set of
tasks generally performed by most specialist physicians. It would be
unreasonable to find that a person who held the job titles of Psychiatrist,
Psychiatrist (Child & Adolescent), Assistant Professor and Consultant at
the Department of Psychiatry, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist and
who is a Fellow of the College would not have diagnosed and treated psychiatric
disorders, ordered diagnostic procedures, prescribed medication and treatment,
and acted as a consultant to other physicians. By setting out a generic list of
tasks typical to most specialists, the NOC document does not command the level
of detail that the Respondent advocates.
[47]
The
decision of Justice Luc Martineau in Taleb, above, is instructive on
this point:
[36]
I also agree with the applicant that the NOC contains no mention of any duties
other than those which are usually performed by general practitioners or
specialist physicians all over the world, that is, making diagnoses and
treating their patients, ordering laboratory tests or other diagnostic procedures,
prescribing medication, acting as a consultant for other physicians or
occasionally conducting research. The duties described in NOC 3111 and 3112 are
an inherent part of the work of any physician practising modern medicine. To
reach the opposite conclusion would amount to believing that fire does not burn
both in Athens and in Persia, to draw on a maxim from the Nicomachean Ethics
which the great philosopher Aristotle used to distinguish between natural law
and “conventional” law.
[48]
The
Respondent’s argument that Taleb is distinguishable cannot succeed. The
Respondent distinguishes Taleb, since: (i) the applicant’s work
certificates stated that she “perform[ed] the function of physician assigned to
the oncology department”, “practis[ed] as a specialist physician assigned to
the medical oncology department”, “perform[ed] the functions of” a resident,
and “provid[ed] in-patient care” (at para 7); and, (ii) the applicant presented
evidence of residency training unlike this Applicant. Reading Justice Martineau’s summary, the Respondent argues that the verb “perform” is operative in Taleb.
[49]
The
distinction, however, between holding the job title of Psychiatrist and
performing the functions of Psychiatrist or practicing as a Psychiatrist or
providing in-patient care, is untenable. A person who holds the job title of
Psychiatrist will obviously perform the functions of a Psychiatrist, practice
as a Psychiatrist, and provide in-patient care.
[50]
The
other ground on which the Respondent seeks to distinguish Taleb is also
unpersuasive. The MI-3 required the Applicant to establish that he had one year
of continuous full-time or equivalent work experience in the NOC 3111 class.
Under the MI-3, the Applicant’s work experience had to reflect the actions in
the lead statement for the NOC 3111 class as set out in the occupational
descriptions of the NOC 3111 class, including the performance of a substantial
number of the main duties and all of the essential duties. In reviewing the PR
Application against the MI-3, the Immigration Officer was required to consider
whether the Applicant had one year of continuous full-time work experience by
examining two aspects of the NOC document: (i) the lead statement; and, (ii)
the main duties. The Immigration Officer was not required to consider whether
the Applicant satisfied the express residency requirements under the
“Employment requirements” heading of the NOC document in applying the MI-3. The
Respondent, himself, states that the focus of the Immigration Officer’s
analysis rests with the work performed by the Applicant during the preceding 10
year period rather than, for example, his educational achievements. Since the
Applicant only needed to establish that he had one year of work experience to
establish that his PR Application was eligible to be processed, the Immigration
Officer was not obligated to consider his residency training at this stage.
It would be unreasonable to find that the MI-3 required the Applicant to
present documents establishing specialty and subspecialty training. Taleb
is not distinguishable since the Applicant failed to present his residency
documents.
[51]
This
Court is not persuaded by the Respondent’s arguments that the Applicant’s
certificates from Saudi Aramco only establish that he worked for an oil company
and that the letter describing him as an Assistant Professor suggests he only
worked in an academic capacity. The certificates from Saudi Aramco state that
the Applicant worked as a Psychiatrist for Saudi Aramco. The Applicant may have
been an oil company employee but he was an oil company employee whose position
was within the NOC 3111 class. The MI-3 only required the Applicant to
establish that he had one year’s full-time experience in the NOC 3111 class.
Since the other documentation presented by the Applicant was sufficient to
establish this, it would not be reasonable to conclude that the Applicant did
not satisfy the MI-3 as he was Assistant Professor since 2010. In this regard,
this Court notes, in obiter, that the Respondent may not have recognized
the nature of academic medicine. Clinical academics generally continue to
provide clinical care in performing research and teaching duties. This is to
ensure that their students obtain practical knowledge for their eventual
practices.
[52]
Finally, this Application
is not analogous to the decision of this Court in Tabañag, above. In Tabañag,
it was held that an applicant could not simply provide evidence that he had
“academic qualifications, [bore] a job title and [was] addressed by that title
in correspondence” to establish that he was within the class of NOC 2151 –
Architect (at para 22). The lead statement and main duties for the NOC 2151
class are more specific and exacting than those for the NOC 3111 class. While
the applicant in Tabañag might not have performed the main duties for
the NOC 2151 class, an applicant holding the position of Psychiatrist would
have performed substantially all of the standard duties required for the NOC
3111 class.
X. Conclusion
[53]
For
all of the above reasons, the Applicant’s application for judicial review is
granted
and the matter is returned for determination anew (de novo) before a
different Immigration Officer.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s application for
judicial review be granted and the matter be returned for determination anew (de
novo) before a different Immigration Officer. No question of
general importance for certification.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
ANNEX “A”
The following are the relevant
legislative provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27:
|
11. (1) A foreign
national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for
any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be
issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the
foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.
…
87.3 (1) This
section applies to applications for visas or other documents made under
subsection 11(1), other than those made by persons referred to in subsection
99(2), to sponsorship applications made by persons referred to in subsection
13(1), to applications for permanent resident status under subsection 21(1)
or temporary resident status under subsection 22(1) made by foreign nationals
in Canada, to applications for work or study permits and to requests under
subsection 25(1) made by foreign nationals outside Canada.
(2) The processing of
applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion
of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals
established by the Government of Canada.
(3) For the purposes of
subsection (2), the Minister may give instructions with respect to the
processing of applications and requests, including instructions
(a) establishing
categories of applications or requests to which the instructions apply;
(a.1) establishing
conditions, by category or otherwise, that must be met before or during the
processing of an application or request;
(b) establishing an
order, by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or
requests;
(c) setting the number
of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any
year; and
(d) providing for the
disposition of applications and requests, including those made subsequent to
the first application or request.
(3.1) An instruction may, if it
so provides, apply in respect of pending applications or requests that are
made before the day on which the instruction takes effect.
(3.2) For greater certainty, an
instruction given under paragraph (3)(c) may provide that the number of
applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any
year be set at zero.
(4) Officers and persons
authorized to exercise the powers of the Minister under section 25 shall
comply with any instructions before processing an application or request or
when processing one. If an application or request is not processed, it may be
retained, returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the
instructions of the Minister.
(5) The fact that an
application or request is retained, returned or otherwise disposed of does
not constitute a decision not to issue the visa or other document, or grant
the status or exemption, in relation to which the application or request is made.
(6) Instructions shall be
published in the Canada Gazette.
(7) Nothing in this section in
any way limits the power of the Minister to otherwise determine the most
efficient manner in which to administer this Act.
|
11. (1) L’étranger
doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les visa et
autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve,
à la suite d’un contrôle, que l’étranger n’est pas interdit de territoire et
se conforme à la présente loi.
[...]
87.3 (1) Le présent
article s’applique aux demandes de visa et autres documents visées au
paragraphe 11(1) — sauf à celle faite par la personne visée au paragraphe
99(2) —, aux demandes de parrainage faites par une personne visée au
paragraphe 13(1), aux demandes de statut de résident permanent visées au
paragraphe 21(1) ou de résident temporaire visées au paragraphe 22(1) faites
par un étranger se trouvant au Canada, aux demandes de permis de travail ou
d’études ainsi qu’aux demandes prévues au paragraphe 25(1) faites par un
étranger se trouvant hors du Canada.
(2) Le traitement des demandes
se fait de la manière qui, selon le ministre, est la plus susceptible d’aider
l’atteinte des objectifs fixés pour l’immigration par le gouvernement
fédéral.
(3) Pour l’application du
paragraphe (2), le ministre peut donner des instructions sur le traitement
des demandes, notamment des instructions :
a) prévoyant les groupes de
demandes à l’égard desquels s’appliquent les instructions;
a.1) prévoyant des conditions,
notamment par groupe, à remplir en vue du traitement des demandes ou lors de
celui-ci;
b) prévoyant l’ordre de
traitement des demandes, notamment par groupe;
c) précisant le nombre de
demandes à traiter par an, notamment par groupe;
d) régissant la disposition des
demandes dont celles faites de nouveau.
(3.1) Les instructions peuvent,
lorsqu’elles le prévoient, s’appliquer à l’égard des demandes pendantes
faites avant la date où elles prennent effet.
(3.2) Il est entendu que les
instructions données en vertu de l’alinéa (3)c) peuvent préciser que le
nombre de demandes à traiter par an, notamment par groupe, est de zéro.
(4) L’agent — ou la personne
habilitée à exercer les pouvoirs du ministre prévus à l’article 25 — est tenu
de se conformer aux instructions avant et pendant le traitement de la
demande; s’il ne procède pas au traitement de la demande, il peut,
conformément aux instructions du ministre, la retenir, la retourner ou en
disposer.
(5) Le fait de retenir ou de
retourner une demande ou d’en disposer ne constitue pas un refus de délivrer
les visa ou autres documents, d’octroyer le statut ou de lever tout ou partie
des critères et obligations applicables.
(6) Les instructions sont
publiées dans la Gazette du Canada.
(7) Le présent article n’a pas
pour effet de porter atteinte au pouvoir du ministre de déterminer de toute
autre façon la manière la plus efficace d’assurer l’application de la loi.
|
ANNEX “B”
The following are the relevant
provisions of the Ministerial Instructions [MI-3]:
|
Instructions
for processing Federal Skilled Worker applications
Federal
Skilled Worker applications
(see
footnote 1) received by the Centralized Intake Office in Sydney, Nova Scotia
on or after July 1, 2011, and that meet either of the following criteria
shall be placed into processing:
1.
Applications submitted with an Arranged Employment Offer (AEO) consistent
with requirements of subsection 82(2) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations.
or
2.
Applications from skilled workers with evidence of experience in the last ten
years under one or more (see footnote 2) of the following National Occupation
Classification (NOC) codes, not exceeding the identified caps:
…
• 3111
Specialist Physicians
...
Footnote
1
In
order to be considered, applications must be completed according to the
application kit requirements in place at the time the application is received
by the designated office.
Footnote
2
Applicants
will have one year of continuous full-time or equivalent paid work experience
in at least one of the listed NOCs and not combined partial year experience
in multiple NOCs. This work experience will reflect the actions described in
the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational
descriptions of the NOC, including the performance of a substantial number of
the main duties and all of the essential duties described.
…
|
Instructions
relatives au traitement des demandes de travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral)
Les
demandes présentées au titre du Programme des travailleurs qualifiés
(fédéral) (voir référence 1) qui sont reçues par le Bureau de réception
centralisée des demandes à Sydney, en Nouvelle-Écosse, le 1er juillet 2011 ou
après cette date et qui remplissent l’un ou l’autre des critères suivants doivent
être envisagées aux fins du traitement :
1. Les demandes accompagnées
d’une offre d’emploi réservé, conformément aux exigences du paragraphe 82(2)
du Règlement sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés.
ou
2. Les demandes de travailleurs
qualifiés accompagnées d’une preuve attestant que l’intéressé possède une
expérience, acquise au cours des dix dernières années, dans une profession
correspondant à l’un ou plusieurs (voir référence 2) des codes suivants de la
CNP, à condition que le nombre de demandes traitées ne dépasse pas les
plafonds établis :
[...]
•
3111 Médecins specialists
[...]
Référence
1
Pour
être envisagées aux fins du traitement, les demandes doivent être remplies
conformément aux exigences énoncées dans la trousse de demande en vigueur à
la date où le bureau désigné de CIC les reçoit.
Référence
2
Les
demandeurs doivent posséder une année continue d’expérience de travail
rémunérée à temps plein, ou l’équivalent, dans au moins une des professions
correspondant aux codes de la CNP énumérés, et non une expérience combinée
d’années partielles dans plusieurs professions de la CNP. Cette expérience de
travail tiendra compte des fonctions décrites dans l’énoncé principal de la
profession, selon les descriptions de travail de la CNP, y compris la
réalisation d’un nombre important des fonctions principales du poste ainsi de
que toutes les fonctions essentielles décrites.
[...]
|
ANNEX
“C”
The following are the relevant
sections of the National Occupation Classification 3111 – Specialist Physicians
[NOC 3111 class]:
|
This
unit group includes specialist physicians in clinical medicine, in laboratory
medicine and in surgery. Specialists in clinical medicine diagnose and treat
diseases and physiological or psychiatric disorders and act as consultants to
other physicians. Specialists in laboratory medicine study the nature, cause
and development of diseases in humans. Specialists in surgery perform and
supervise surgical procedures. Specialists in clinical medicine usually work
in private practice or in a hospital while those in laboratory medicine and
in surgery usually work in hospitals. Residents in training to become
specialist physicians are included in this unit group.
…
Specialists
in clinical medicine perform some or all of the following duties:
•
Diagnose and treat diseases and physiological or psychiatric disorders
•
Order laboratory tests, X-rays and other diagnostic procedures
•
Prescribe medication and treatment and refer patients for surgery
•
Act as consultants to other physicians
•
May conduct medical research.
|
Ce
groupe de base comprend les médecins spécialistes en médecine clinique, en
médecine de laboratoire et en chirurgie. Les spécialistes en médecine
clinique diagnostiquent et traitent les maladies et les troubles
physiologiques ou psychologiques, et exercent des fonctions de consultant
auprès des autres médecins. Les spécialistes en médecine de laboratoire
étudient la nature, la pathogenèse et l'évolution des maladies chez les
humains. Les spécialistes en chirurgie pratiquent des interventions
chirurgicales et supervisent les procédures chirurgicales. Les spécialistes
en médecine clinique exercent en cabinet privé ou dans un centre hospitalier,
alors que les spécialistes en médecine de laboratoire et en chirurgie
travaillent dans les centres hospitaliers. Les résidents en médecine
spécialisée sont inclus dans ce groupe de base.
[...]
Les
médecins spécialistes exercent une partie ou l'ensemble des fonctions
suivantes :
Spécialistes
en médecine clinique
•
diagnostiquer et traiter les maladies et les troubles physiologiques ou
psychiatriques;
•
commander des épreuves de laboratoire, des rayons X et autres procédures de
diagnostic;
•
prescrire des médicaments et des traitements et diriger les patients au
service de chirurgie;
•
exercer des fonctions de consultant auprès des autres médecins;
•
faire, s'il y a lieu, de la recherche.
|
Email this Content