Date:
20120713
Docket:
IMM-8560-11
Citation:
2012 FC 882
Ottawa, Ontario,
July 13, 2012
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
PAMELA OSORIO
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Ms
Pamela Sheila Osorio, a citizen of the Philippines, applied for permanent
residence in Canada after receiving a job offer as an office administrator from
Christopher’s Fine Drycleaning in Okotoks, Alberta. However, an immigration
officer in Manila concluded that the offer was not genuine and denied Ms
Osorio’s application.
[2]
Ms
Osorio contends that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because it did not
disclose why the officer doubted the genuineness of the employer’s offer. She
asks me to quash the officer’s decision and order another officer to reconsider
it.
[3]
I
agree that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because it did not
adequately explain why the officer concluded that the offer was not genuine. I
must, therefore, grant this application for judicial review.
[4]
The
sole issue is whether the officer’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The Officer’s
Decision
[5]
The
officer’s principal concerns about Ms Osorio’s offer of employment were:
• it
would not make sense for Ms Osorio to leave the Philippines, where she runs a
number of family businesses, to take a lower paying job in Canada;
• Ms
Osorio had limited knowledge of the job she would be performing in Canada or her destination; and
• Ms
Osorio had not spoken to her prospective employer for ten months.
[6]
The
officer expressed her concerns to Ms Osorio, but felt that Ms Osorio had failed
to respond to them satisfactorily. She believed Ms Osorio had obtained the job
offer in order to gain access to Canada for some reason other than employment.
She doubted Ms Osorio would actually take up the position offered to her.
III. Was the Officer’s
Decision Unreasonable?
[7]
In
my view, the officer did not adequately consider the evidence before her that
supported the genuineness of Ms Osorio’s intentions. This included:
• Ms
Osorio stated that she wanted to start over in Canada, have a more balanced
life, raise her children in a small community, have more time for her family,
and have less stress. She was looking for a 9-to-5 job, with weekends free. At
the moment, she works 24/7.
• She
was encouraged to seek employment in Canada because her Philippino friends in Vancouver had achieved dhe balance she was seeking. She had also researched employment in
the United States and Australia, but she regarded those countries as less
appealing than Canada.
• She
was aware that the dry-cleaning business had two branches, one in Calgary and one in Okotoks. The Okotoks branch had five or six employees, and the Calgary site had nine or ten. She found about five or six other competing drycleaners in
the Okotoks area. At present, the owner acted as office administrator, but she
needed help, especially since she was expecting a child. As administrator, Ms
Osorio would operate and organize the office and help out on the retail side
when needed. While she has no direct experience in drycleaning, her
administrative duties would be similar to the responsibilities she currently
shoulders in the Philippines.
• Ms
Osorio had researched Okotoks on the Internet. It is about 18 kilometres from Calgary, a 45-minute drive. While she had not yet visited Okotoks, based on her research,
it seemed to be good place to raise a family.
• Just
a few days before Ms Osorio’s interview with the officer, the employer supplied
a second letter confirming the job offer to Ms Osorio.
[8]
In
the face of this evidence, it is difficult to understand why the officer
harboured ongoing concerns about Ms Osorio’s reasons for being interested in
the job, her knowledge of the business, her familiarity with her intended
destination, and the lack of recent contact with the employer. Clearly, the
officer thought Ms Osorio had reasons other than those she expressed for
seeking a job that was beneath her qualifications and current salary. But her
decision does not disclose what those might be. Nor did the officer explain why
the evidence before her was insufficient to allay her concerns. Accordingly, I
find that the officer’s decision was unreasonable because it was not justified,
intelligible, or transparent.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[9]
Based
on the evidence before her, the officer’s decision did not fall within the
range of defensible outcomes. Therefore, it was unreasonable. I must,
therefore, allow this application for judicial review and order another officer
to reconsider Ms Osorio’s application. Neither party proposed a question of
general importance for me to certify, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is referred back to
another officer for reconsideration.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content