Khakh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 1030

Date: 20010918

Docket: IMM-5369-00

                                                                                                Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1030

BETWEEN:                                                                                              

TALJINDER SINGH KHAKH

Applicant

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

                                                    REASONS FOR ORDER

HANSEN J.

[1]                 This is an application for judicial review of the September 20, 2000 decision of an immigration officer denying the applicant an exemption from the requirement to apply for permanent residence from outside Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[2]                 The main issue on this application for judicial review centres around the immigration officer's consideration of the applicant's work history in Canada.

[3]                 The immigration officer in the brief rational for the decision stated "no letter from employer noted". In fact, the applicant had submitted two letters from his employer. In the affidavit submitted by the immigration officer, she lists the documents she considered in reaching her decision which includes the two letters from the employer. The immigration officer further deposes that the entry at issue was a mistake. She states:

[t]he employment history on the Applicant's IMM-5001 was incomplete, namely there were no dates.    I believe that I meant to indicate in my notes that the employment history on the IMM-5001 was inconsistent with the employer letters as the dates were not mentioned. As I have previously indicated at paragraph 3 above, I was aware of and did review both of the employer letters submitted by the Applicant before making my decision.

[4]    I do not find this explanation persuasive particularly in light of the fact that the immigration officer refers specifically in her notes to the applicant's employment for 1997 and 1998 but makes no reference to the applicant's employment in 1999. As the applicant's employment history was a key factor identified in the reasons, the failure of the immigration officer to have regard to the material before her in reaching her decision constitutes reviewable error.

[5]    Accordingly, the application for judicial review is allowed, the September 20, 2000 decision is set aside, and the matter is remitted for reconsideration by a different immigration officer.

                                                                                "Dolores M. Hansen"            

                                                                                                      J.F.C.C.                      

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

September 18 , 2001