|
Federal Court
|
|
Cour fédérale
|
Date: 20090610
Docket: IMM-5060-08
Citation: 2009 FC 620
Ottawa,
Ontario, June 10, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
TAJINDERPAL
SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
applicant was refused a work
permit to work in a relative’s restaurant in British Columbia.
He seeks judicial review of that refusal. For the reasons that follow, his
application is dismissed.
Background
[2]
The applicant,
Tajinder Singh, is a 20-year-old Indian national, from Punjab province. He was offered employment in Canada as a commercial janitor and cleaner, for a two-year term,
by the prospective employer, Mahek Restaurant and Lounge. The employer
obtained a positive Labour Market Opinion (LMO) for the position, which remains
valid through 2010-08-11.
[3]
Mr. Singh filed his
application for a Work Permit at the Canadian consulate in Chandigarh, India, on September 11, 2008. He filed
various documents in support of his application, including a letter of
recommendation from his current employer, academic records, banking records,
and registration documents for a motorcycle.
[4]
The applicant was
informed that his application had been refused by form letter dated September
17, 2008. The letter indicates that the visa officer was not satisfied that
Mr. Singh would leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for his stay,
on the basis that he had not demonstrated that he was sufficiently well
established in India or that he had sufficient ties to India.
[5]
The visa officer’s
Computer Assisted Immigration Processing (CAIPS) notes record the following:
FILE/DOC REVIEWED. APPLICANT IS
UNMARRIED. GRADE 12 EDUCATION AND STATED ONLY WORK EXPERIENCE IN LOW SKILL LOW
PAY JOB IN INDIA. LIMITED PROSPECT OF ADVANCEMENT. VERY MOBILE. STRONG ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR HIM TO REMAIN IN CANADA. NOT SATISFIED THAT HE WOULD DEPART FROM CDN UPON HIS
AUTHORIZED STAY. (sic)
Issues
[6]
The applicant raises
three issues:
a.
Whether the officer
breached the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness by not
affording the applicant an opportunity to address the officer’s concerns either
by way of letter or interview;
b.
Whether the officer
breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness by failing
to provide adequate reasons. and
c.
Whether the decision
of the officer was reasonable.
Analysis
[7]
I find that there is
no merit to the submission that the officer ought to have provided the
applicant with an opportunity to address his concerns. Justice Russell in Ling
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2003 FC
1198, reviewed the law as to when a visa officer ought to provide such an
opportunity. Relying on Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 468, he noted firstly
that there was no statutory right to an interview, or any dialogue of the sort
suggested here. Secondly, it was noted that generally an opportunity to
respond is available only when the officer has information of which the
applicant is not aware. As in Ling, that is not the situation here and
thus no opportunity was required to be given to Mr. Singh to address the officer’s
concerns. Further, when as here the officer is relying only on materials
submitted by or known to the applicant, there is no need for an interview.
[8]
I am also of the view
that the officer’s reasons complied with his legal obligations. The adequacy of
reasons must be examined in the context of the decision. The duty to provide
reasons when assessing an application for temporary residence status has been
held to be minimal: da Silva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2007 FC
1138. The same is true, in my view, when dealing with a work permit
application. In this case, a reading of the reasons, which includes the CAIPS
notes, makes it clear to the applicant the basis on which his application was
denied; thus the fundamental basis for requiring reasons was met.
[9]
Lastly, the applicant
submits that the visa officer’s decision was unreasonable because the officer
failed to consider evidence of ties to India, namely, that he has property and family
in India. The applicant submits that the officer
failed to adequately assess this evidence but relied on stereotypes and
generalizations.
[10]
The officer states
that she reviewed the file prior to making her decision. It does not follow
that in failing to mention the applicant’s motorcycle, bank account or family
that she ignored that evidence. This evidence was not of such a significant character
that one would expect that it would be specifically mentioned and reasons given
for discounting it.
[11]
The officer’s
conclusion falls within the range of reasonable and acceptable outcomes based
on the evidence before her as described in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2009 SCC 9, and ought not to be upset.
[12]
Neither party
proposed a question for certification nor is there one on these facts.
Email this Content