Date: 20061017
Docket: IMM-7563-05
Citation: 2006 FC 1238
Montréal,
Quebec,
October 17, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
PARMINDER
SINGH VAIREA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of the decision of a
visa officer, dated June 22, 2005, dismissing the applicant’s application
for a work permit in Canada.
[2]
The
applicant is a citizen of India. He received an offer of employment from a
company named “Southern Restoration and Renovation Company” (Southern
Renovation) to work in Canada as a cement finisher on February 2, 2005.
A positive labour market opinion was also obtained on March 30, 2005 from Human
Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), formerly Human Resources and
Development Canada (HRDC). Section 11 of IRPA provides that a foreign national
must apply to an officer for a visa before entering Canada. In April
2005, the applicant applied for a work permit. A visa officer interviewed the
applicant on June 22, 2005.
[3]
Sections
200 and 203 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227 (the
Regulations) provide the criteria that the visa officer must examine before
issuing a work permit to a foreign national. These provisions are reproduced in
the Annex. In the present case, no issue is raised concerning the
interpretation or scope of these provisions.
[4]
Before
the interview, the visa officer reviewed the notes on file including electronic
correspondence dated May 9, 2005 from Boris Angelov of HRSDC. Mr. Angelov,
who originally issued the market opinion, expressed his concerns regarding the applicant’s
prospective employer, on the basis of a published newspaper article that
mentioned that a group of overseas Filipino workers in Toronto had filed a
complaint of recruitment fraud against a Toronto-based employment agency and
its owner-operator, Cecilia Agtarap. In this correspondence, Mr. Angelov noted
that the owner-operator of Southern Renovation is Norberto Agtarap, ex-husband
of Cecilia Agtarap (now known as Cecilia Bautista) and that her former agency
“The Sisters Employment” is located next door to Southern Renovation.
[5]
Given
the unsatisfactory answers obtained from the applicant at the interview, the
visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant had a genuine offer of
employment or was able to perform the work sought as required by the Regulations.
[6]
Where
the visa officer’s decision under review involves a finding of fact, the
standard of review will be patent unreasonableness. Where the decision involves
a decision of mixed fact and law, the standard is reasonableness simpliciter
(Boni v. Canada (Ministre de la citoyenneté et de
l’immigration), 2006 CAF 68 at para. 8; Yin v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 661 at para. 20; Ouafae v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 459 at paras. 19-20. With regard
to questions of procedural fairness or natural justice, the correctness
standard will always apply (Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ontario (Minister of
Labour),
[2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 at para. 100).
[7]
In
the case at bar, the applicant raises two issues. First, he argues that the
visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by relying upon extrinsic
evidence, without providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond.
Second, he argues that the visa officer’s decision was unreasonable or patently
unreasonable in that it was based upon extraneous considerations and faulty
reasoning.
Alleged breach of the
duty of procedural fairness
[8]
The
Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes contain the
following entry, dated May 2, 2005:
HRDC COMMENTS: ONLY MINIMAL ENGLISH
SKILLS REQUIRED; PLS DO *NOT* ISSUE ANY WORK PERMIT BEFORE GETTING IN CONTACT
WITH BORIS ANGELOV VIA E-MAIL AT BORIS.ANGELOV@HRSDC-RHDCC.GC.CA ; THANK YOU!
B.A. / /
[9]
Near
the end of the CAIPS notes, following the reasons for the visa officer’s
decision, the following entry can be found:
W050500004 SML 22-JUN-2005
Addition to above: See file for concerns
about employer.
W050500004 SML 22-JUN-2005
[10]
The
applicant submits that these excerpts from the CAIPS notes indicate that the
visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by relying upon extrinsic
evidence without giving the applicant the opportunity to respond (Mehta v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1073; Li v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 174).
[11]
At
this point, I note that a similar argument was made by counsel and addressed in
the following way by the Court in Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [2006]
F.C.J. No. 297 (F.C.) (QL), 2006 FC 227:
In
order to address this issue, it must be determined whether the officer used
extrinsic evidence in coming to a decision. It would be necessary to disclose
this evidence to the applicant for a response.
[12]
That
being said, the respondent contends that a reference in the CAIPS notes to the
physical file (which includes the electronic correspondence dated May 9,
2005 from Boris Angelov) neither points to the existence of “hidden
information” nor to a breach of natural justice or error of law. The respondent
submits that the summary of the interview contained in the CAIPS notes clearly
indicate that the visa officer confronted the applicant with her concerns
regarding his prospective employer. He argues that there is no evidence to
support the applicant’s claims.
[13]
I
accept the submissions made by the respondent. There was no breach of the duty
to act fairly in this case. It is apparent that the refusal to issue a work
permit is not based on the content of the newspaper article or the information
mentioned by Mr. Angelov in his previous correspondence, but on the inability
of the applicant to properly address the visa officer’s concerns with respect
to Southern Renovation and the validity of its offer of employment. There is no
evidence to support the applicant’s contention that the visa officer had
concerns above and beyond the concerns relayed to the applicant at the
interview, namely whether the applicant knew anything about paying fees in
exchange for an offer of employment.
[14]
The
CAIPS notes clearly indicate that the visa officer confronted the applicant
with her concerns:
What do you know about this company that
is hiring you? Whatever I read in the ad, and what friend found out from
employer regarding salary and terms of employment.
Did you pay Southern Restoration &
Renovations any fees to get this job?
No.
Explained to PA concerns about legitimacy
of employer in Cda. PA states again that he did not pay any fees to get this
job.
PA states that employer told him that
another applicant has been approved by this office to go work for this company.
[15]
Furthermore,
in her affidavit, the visa officer states that immediately after the interview,
she realized that she should have made a reference in the CAIPS notes to the
file regarding concerns about the prospective employer. She therefore added a
reference to the file that was date-stamped with the same date as that of the
interview. She also explains that SML are her initials.
[16]
In
my view, the evidence shows that the visa officer did not rely on extrinsic
evidence in coming to her decision. It also indicates that the visa officer
gave the applicant an opportunity to respond to her concerns. The visa officer
was concerned that the applicant did not know much about his prospective
employer. This was supported by the fact that the applicant had never spoken
directly to his prospective employer and that his friend had found the ad
through the internet. The visa officer’s conclusions in this regard are not
patently unreasonable.
Alleged errors of fact
or faulty reasoning
[17]
In
my opinion, the visa officer could base her refusal to issue a work permit simply
on the concerns she had with respect to the bona fide character of the
offer made by Southern Renovation. Be that as it may, it is apparent that in
this case, the visa officer had further grounds to dismiss the applicant’s
application. The applicant submits that her concerns with respect to the ability
of the applicant to perform the work sought are unreasonable or patently
unreasonable since the applicant had 20 years of experience in cement
finishing. The applicant submits that the visa officer indulged herself in
speculation. She erred by not finding credible the applicant’s statement to the
effect he had never encountered any problems in his claimed line of work. He
alleges that the visa officer never explained to him what she meant by
“problem”. He also submits that the visa officer erroneously wrote in the CAIPS
notes that he worked in South Africa, when, in reality, he
worked in Libya.
[18]
The
respondent submits that the visa officer was not bound by the positive HRSDC
labour market opinion, as it constitutes only one of the elements that must be
considered by the visa officer. He also argues that the onus was on the
applicant to ask the visa officer for specifics if he was confused by her
questions. He submits that the visa officer’s error regarding his work
experience in Libya was
immaterial to the decision.
[19]
I
accept the submissions made by the respondent. The visa officer based her
decision on a number of relevant considerations, each of which is supported by
the evidence. Her conclusion is not patently unreasonable. The visa officer was
entitled to find that the applicant’s answers with regard to his work
experience were unsatisfactory. In this regard, a visa officer’s decision must
be given a large measure of deference (see Chen v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1378 at paras. 6-7).
Finally, the visa officer’s reference to South Africa instead of Libya is
immaterial to the case at bar, as she did not base any of her conclusions on
this finding.
[20]
For
these reasons, the application is dismissed. No question of general importance
is raised in this case.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
- The application for
judicial review is dismissed.
- No question of
general importance shall be certified.
“Luc
Martineau”
ANNEX
|
200.
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an officer shall issue a work permit
to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that
(a)
the foreign national applied for it in accordance with Division 2;
(b)
the foreign national will leave Canada
by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part
9;
(c)
the foreign national
(i)
is described in section 206, 207 or 208,
(ii)
intends to perform work described in section 204 or 205, or
(iii)
has been offered employment and an officer has determined under section 203
that the offer is genuine and that the employment is likely to result in a
neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada; and
(d)
[Repealed, SOR/2004-167, s. 56]
(e)
the requirements of section 30 are met.
(2)
Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a foreign national who satisfies
the criteria set out in section 206 or paragraph 207(c) or (d).
(3)
An officer shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if
(a)
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable
to perform the work sought;
(b)
in the case of a foreign national who intends to work in the Province of
Quebec and does not hold a Certificat d'acceptation du Québec, a
determination under section 203 is required and the laws of that Province
require that the foreign national hold a Certificat d'acceptation du
Québec;
(c)
the specific work that the foreign national intends to perform is likely to
adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in progress or the
employment of any person involved in the dispute, unless all or almost all of
the workers involved in the labour dispute are not Canadian citizens or
permanent residents and the hiring of workers to replace the workers involved
in the labour dispute is not prohibited by the Canadian law applicable in the
province where the workers involved in the labour dispute are employed;
(d)
the foreign national seeks to enter Canada
as a live-in caregiver and the foreign national does not meet the
requirements of section 112; or
(e)
the foreign national has engaged in unauthorized study or work in Canada or has failed to comply
with a condition of a previous permit or authorization unless
(i)
a period of six months has elapsed since the cessation of the unauthorized
work or study or failure to comply with a condition,
(ii)
the study or work was unauthorized by reason only that the foreign national
did not comply with conditions imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of
subparagraphs 185(b)(i) to (iii) or paragraph 185(c);
(iii)
section 206 applies to them; or
(iv)
the foreign national was subsequently issued a temporary resident permit
under subsection 24(1) of the Act.
203.
(1) On application under Division 2 for a work permit made by a foreign
national other than a foreign national referred to in subparagraphs 200(1)(c)(i)
and (ii), an officer shall determine, on the basis of an opinion provided by
the Department of Human Resources Development, if the job offer is genuine
and if the employment of the foreign national is likely to have a neutral or
positive effect on the labour market in Canada.
(2)
The Department of Human Resources Development shall provide the opinion
referred to in subsection (1) on the request of an officer or an employer or
group of employers. A request may be made in respect of
(a)
an offer of employment to a foreign national; and
(b)
offers of employment made, or anticipated to be made, by an employer or group
of employers.
(3)
An opinion provided by the Department of Human Resources Development shall be
based on the following factors:
(a)
whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to result in direct
job creation or job retention for Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
(b)
whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to result in the
creation or transfer of skills and knowledge for the benefit of Canadian
citizens or permanent residents;
(c)
whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to fill a labour
shortage;
(d)
whether the wages offered to the foreign national are consistent with the
prevailing wage rate for the occupation and whether the working conditions
meet generally accepted Canadian standards;
(e)
whether the employer has made, or has agreed to make, reasonable efforts to
hire or train Canadian citizens or permanent residents; and
(f)
whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to adversely affect
the settlement of any labour dispute in progress or the employment of any
person involved in the dispute.
(4)
In the case of a foreign national who intends to work in the Province of Quebec, the opinion provided by
the Department of Human Resources Development shall be made in concert with
the competent authority of that Province.
|
200.
(1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), l’agent délivre un permis de
travail à l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont
établis :
a)
l’étranger a demandé un permis de travail conformément à la section 2;
b)
il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable
au titre de la section 2 de la partie 9;
c)
il se trouve dans l’une des situations suivantes :
(i)
il est visé par les articles 206, 207 ou 208,
(ii)
il entend exercer un travail visé aux articles 204 ou 205,
(iii)
il s’est vu présenter une offre d’emploi et l’agent a, en application de
l’article 203, conclu que cette offre est authentique et que l’exécution du
travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’avoir des effets positifs ou neutres
sur le marché du travail canadien;
d)
[Abrogé, DORS/2004-167, art. 56]
e)
il satisfait aux exigences prévues à l’article 30.
(2)
L’alinéa (1)b) ne s’applique pas à l’étranger qui satisfait aux
exigences prévues à l’article 206 ou aux alinéas 207c) ou d).
(3)
Le permis de travail ne peut être délivré à l’étranger dans les cas suivants
:
a)
l’agent a des motifs raisonnables de croire que l’étranger est incapable
d’exercer l’emploi pour lequel le permis de travail est demandé;
b)
l’étranger qui cherche à travailler dans la province de Québec ne détient pas
le certificat d’acceptation qu’exige la législation de cette province et est
assujetti à la décision prévue à l’article 203;
c)
le travail spécifique pour lequel l’étranger demande le permis est
susceptible de nuire au règlement de tout conflit de travail en cours ou à
l’emploi de toute personne touchée par ce conflit, à moins que la totalité ou
la quasi-totalité des salariés touchés par le conflit de travail ne soient ni
des citoyens canadiens ni des résidents permanents et que l’embauche de
salariés pour les remplacer ne soit pas interdite par le droit canadien
applicable dans la province où travaillent les salariés visés;
d)
l’étranger cherche à entrer au Canada et à faire partie de la catégorie des
aides familiaux, à moins qu’il ne se conforme à l’article 112;
e)
il a poursuivi des études ou exercé un emploi au Canada sans autorisation ou
permis ou a enfreint les conditions de l’autorisation ou du permis qui lui a
été délivré, sauf dans les cas suivants :
(i)
une période de six mois s’est écoulée depuis les faits reprochés,
(ii)
ses études ou son travail n’ont pas été autorisés pour la seule raison que
les conditions visées à l’alinéa 185a), aux sous-alinéas 185b)(i)
à (iii) ou à l’alinéa 185c) n’ont pas été respectées,
(iii)
il est visé par l’article 206,
(iv)
il s’est subséquemment vu délivrer un permis de séjour temporaire au titre du
paragraphe 24(1) de la Loi.
203.
(1) Sur demande de permis de travail présentée conformément à la section 2
par un étranger, autre que celui visé à l’un des sous-alinéas 200(1)c)(i)
et (ii), l’agent décide, en se fondant sur l’avis du ministère du
Développement des ressources humaines, si l’offre d’emploi est authentique et
si l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’avoir des effets
positifs ou neutres sur le marché du travail canadien.
(2)
Le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines fournit l’avis à la
demande de tout employeur, groupe d’employeurs ou agent faite à l’égard :
a)
soit de l’offre d’emploi présentée à l’étranger;
b)
soit d’offres d’emploi qu’un employeur ou un groupe d’employeurs a présentées
ou envisage de présenter.
(3)
Le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines fonde son avis sur les
facteurs suivants :
a)
l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’entraîner la création
directe ou le maintien d’emplois pour des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents
permanents;
b)
l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’entraîner le
développement ou le transfert de compétences ou de connaissances au profit
des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents;
c)
l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible de résorber une pénurie
de main-d’oeuvre;
d)
le salaire offert à l’étranger correspond aux taux de salaires courants pour
cette profession et les conditions de travail qui lui sont offertes satisfont
aux normes canadiennes généralement acceptées;
e)
l’employeur a fait ou accepté de faire des efforts raisonnables pour
embaucher ou former des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents;
f)
le travail de l’étranger est susceptible de nuire au règlement d’un conflit
de travail en cours ou à l’emploi de toute personne touchée par ce conflit.
(4)
Dans le cas de l’étranger qui cherche à travailler dans la province de
Québec, le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines établit son
avis de concert avec les autorités compétentes de la province.
|
Email this Content