Date:
20130611
Docket:
IMM-8543-12
Citation:
2013 FC 625
Ottawa, Ontario,
June 11, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley
BETWEEN:
|
|
ǛNZILE BURCU BİLGUTAY
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
The
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], s 72(1), of a decision that
the applicant did not meet the requirements of the Federal Skilled Worker
Class.
[2]
Ms
Bilgütay is a Turkish citizen. She secured an approved Arranged Employment
Offer (AEO) from Service Canada for a job as an event coordinator in British Columbia, took the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) examination
on May 9, 2009, and submitted an application for permanent residence on
February 27, 2011.
[3]
In
her application, she requested that if she did not score the required number of
points, the immigration officer consider using a substituted evaluation in
accordance with the CIC guidelines.
[4]
A
fairness letter was issued by an immigration officer on November 25, 2011 and Ms.
Bilgütay’s representative replied to it on January 3, 2011. Nonetheless, the
visa officer found on June 15, 2012 that Ms. Bilgütay did not possess
sufficient command of English and rejected her application.
ISSUES:
[5]
The
issues before the Court were:
a. What is the
standard of review?
b. Did the officer
err in determining that the IELTS scores indicated a “limited” English ability?
c. Did the officer
err by evaluating the applicant’s language abilities against the IELTS website
and not explaining why her Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) levels meant that
she could not perform the position’s duties?
[6]
The
applicable legislation is the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], sections 76 and 79:
|
Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations
SOR/2002-227
|
Règlement sur l’immigration et
la protection des réfugiés
DORS/2002-227
|
|
Selection
criteria
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).
Number
of points
(2) The Minister shall fix and make available to the public the
minimum number of points required of a skilled worker, on the basis of
(a) the number of
applications by skilled workers as members of the federal skilled worker
class currently being processed;
(b) the number of
skilled workers projected to become permanent residents according to the report
to Parliament referred to in section 94 of the Act; and
(c) the potential,
taking into account economic and other relevant factors, for the
establishment of skilled workers in Canada.
Circumstances for officer's
substituted evaluation
(3) Whether or not the skilled worker has
been awarded the minimum number of required points referred to in subsection
(2), an officer may substitute for the criteria set out in paragraph (1)(a)
their evaluation of the likelihood of the ability of the skilled worker to
become economically established in Canada if the number of points awarded is
not a sufficient indicator of whether the skilled worker may become
economically established in Canada.
Concurrence
(4) An evaluation made under subsection (3)
requires the concurrence of a second officer.
|
Critères
de sélection
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).
Nombre
de points
(2) Le ministre établit le
nombre minimum de points que doit obtenir le travailleur qualifié en se
fondant sur les éléments ci-après et en informe le public :
a) le nombre de demandes,
au titre de la catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral), déjà en cours
de traitement;
b) le nombre de
travailleurs qualifiés qui devraient devenir résidents permanents selon le
rapport présenté au Parlement conformément à l’article 94 de la Loi;
c) les perspectives
d’établissement des travailleurs qualifiés au Canada, compte tenu des
facteurs économiques et autres facteurs pertinents.
Substitution de l’appréciation
de l’agent à la grille
(3) Si le nombre de points obtenu par un
travailleur qualifié — que celui-ci obtienne ou non le nombre minimum de
points visé au paragraphe (2) — n’est pas un indicateur suffisant de
l’aptitude de ce travailleur qualifié à réussir son établissement économique
au Canada, l’agent peut substituer son appréciation aux critères prévus à
l’alinéa (1)a).
Confirmation
(4) Toute décision de l’agent au titre du
paragraphe (3) doit être confirmée par un autre agent.
|
|
Official
languages
79. (1) A
skilled worker must specify in their application for a permanent resident
visa which language — English or French — is to be considered their first
official language in Canada and which is to be considered their second
official language in Canada and must have their proficiency in those
languages assessed by an organization or institution designated under
subsection (3).
Proficiency
in English and French (24 points)
(2) Assessment
points for proficiency in the official languages of Canada shall be awarded
up to a maximum of 24 points based on the benchmarks referred to in Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000 for the
English language and Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens 2006
for the French language, as follows:
(a) for
the ability to speak, listen, read or write with high proficiency
(i) in the first
official language, 4 points for each of those abilities if the skilled
worker’s proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 8 or higher, and
(ii) in the second
official language, 2 points for each of those abilities if the skilled
worker’s proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 8 or higher;
(b) for
the ability to speak, listen, read or write with moderate proficiency
(i) in the first
official language, 2 points for each of those abilities if the skilled
worker’s proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 6 or 7, and
(ii) in the second
official language, 2 points for each of those abilities if the skilled
worker’s proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 6 or 7; and
(c) for
the ability to speak, listen, read or write
(i) with basic
proficiency in either official language, 1 point for each of those
abilities, up to a maximum of 2 points, if the skilled worker’s
proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 4 or 5, and
(ii) with no
proficiency in either official language, 0 points if the skilled worker’s
proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 3 or lower.
|
Langues
officielles
79. (1) Le
travailleur qualifié indique dans sa demande de visa de résident permanent la
langue — français ou anglais — qui doit être considérée comme sa première
langue officielle au Canada et celle qui doit être considérée comme sa
deuxième langue officielle au Canada et fait évaluer ses compétences
dans ces langues par une institution ou organisation désignée aux termes du
paragraphe (3).
Compétence
en français et en anglais (24 points)
(2) Le
maximum de points d’appréciation attribués pour la compétence du travailleur
qualifié dans les langues officielles du Canada est de 24, calculés d’après
les standards prévus dans les Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens
2006, pour le français, et dans le Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000, pour l’anglais, et
selon la grille suivante :
a) pour l’aptitude
à parler, à écouter, à lire ou à écrire à un niveau de compétence
élevé :
(i) dans la
première langue officielle, 4 points pour chaque aptitude si les
compétences du travailleur qualifié correspondent au moins à un
niveau 8,
(ii) dans la seconde
langue officielle, 2 points pour chaque aptitude si les compétences du
travailleur qualifié correspondent au moins à un niveau 8;
b) pour l’aptitude
à parler, à écouter, à lire ou à écrire à un niveau de compétence
moyen :
(i) dans la
première langue officielle, 2 points pour chaque aptitude si les
compétences du travailleur qualifié correspondent aux niveaux 6 ou 7,
(ii) dans la
seconde langue officielle, 2 points si les compétences du travailleur
qualifié correspondent aux niveaux 6 ou 7;
c) pour l’aptitude
à parler, à écouter, à lire ou à écrire chacune des langues officielles :
(i) à un niveau de
compétence de base faible, 1 point par aptitude, à concurrence de
2 points, si les compétences du travailleur qualifié correspondent aux
niveaux 4 ou 5,
(ii) à un niveau
de compétence de base nul, 0 point si les compétences du travailleur qualifié
correspondent à un niveau 3 ou à un niveau inférieur.
|
A. Standard of
review;
[7]
The
standard of review for an officer's determination of
eligibility for permanent residence under the federal skilled worker class has
been determined by jurisprudence to be reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at para 57; Khosa,
2009 SCC 12, at paragraph 59; Tan v Canada (MCI), 2012 FC 1079,
at paras 32-33).
B. Did the officer
err in determining that the IELTS scores indicated a “limited” English ability?
[8]
The
Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) are the national standard for describing,
measuring, and recognizing the English language proficiency of adult immigrants
and prospective immigrants for living and working in Canada. The IELTS are
one of several language tests which have been designated as being acceptable to
assess an applicant’s CLB score.
[9]
The
applicant argued that the officer had erred in assessing her IELTS scores from
an overall result of 4.5 as placing her in Band 4, “Limited User”, rather than
Band 5, “Modest User”. She argues that as a result the officer evaluated her
listening ability as if she had scored 4.0 in the CLB, rather than 4.5.
[10]
Her
IELTS test results were:
Listening Reading Writing Speaking Overall
4.5 5.0 6.5 6.5 5.5
[11]
The
IELTS website gives the following descriptions of the bands in question (http://www.ielts.org/test_takers_information/getting_my_results/my_test_score.aspx):
Band 4 – Limited User: basic competence is limited to
familiar situations. Has frequent problems in understanding and expression.
Is not able to use complex language.
Band
5 – Modest User:
has partial command of the language, coping with overall meaning in most
situations, though is likely to make many mistakes. Should be able to handle
basic communication in own field.
[12]
The
respondent argued that Section 79(2)(c)(i) specifically provides that 1
point should be awarded for basic proficiency where the skilled worker’s
proficiency corresponds to a benchmark of 4 or 5. The visa officer awarded the
applicant 1 point for her listening skills.
[13]
I
find that this was a reasonable decision within the discretion of the officer.
C. Did the officer
err by evaluating the applicant’s language abilities against the IELTS website
and not explaining why her Canadian Language Bench (CLB) levels meant that she
could not perform the position’s duties?
[14]
The
applicant argued that the visa officer had erred in concluding that her
language profile showed her to be unable to perform the duties of the offered
position. She stated that she had scored somewhere between a Limited
User and a Modest User in listening, while achieving better results in the
other tested categories. As a Modest User can cope with overall meaning in
most situations and can handle basic communication in her own field, she would
be able to work in her field.
[15]
The
respondent argued that the LMO required
both oral and written English skills. Given the low proficiency in the
listening aspect of oral English, it was open to the visa officer to conclude
that the applicant’s level of ability did not permit her to carry out the
stated duties of the job. The visa officer had made a specific factual finding
that the position required better proficiency in English than Ms Bilgütay
possessed, and this finding was reasonable.
[16]
I
might have found differently on this point given the higher speaking and
writing scores had I been making the decision below, but the officer appears to
have exercised his discretion reasonably. As the respondent argued, it was the
officer’s responsibility to assess whether the applicant’s level of ability
actually permitted her to carry out the stated duties of the job. The Court
may not interfere with that assessment unless it was made unreasonably.
CERTIFIED QUESTION:
[17]
The applicant has proposed that the following question be
certified as a serious question of general importance:
Where an officer has concerns over whether an applicant is able to
perform and carry out the employment of a job offer, what are the standards, if
any, that an officer must use in determining a position language requirement?
[18]
The respondent opposes certification of these questions on the
grounds that there is no genuine disagreement on the
standard and that an answer would not be dispositive in this case. I agree and
will not, therefore, certify a question.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is denied. No question
is certified.
“Richard G. Mosley”
Email this Content