Date: 20070924
Docket: IMM-426-07
Citation: 2007 FC 927
Ottawa, Ontario, September 24,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Beaudry
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD
AMIR IBRAHIM QURESHI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), of a decision by
Ms. Marlene Edmond, Designated Immigration Officer (the Officer), dated November 10, 2006, in which it was found that the applicant
does not have sufficient points to meet the requirements for immigration to
Canada as a member of the Federal Skilled Worker Class.
ISSUES
[2]
Did
the Officer err by failing to provide sufficient reasons?
[3]
The
answer to this question is negative and this application for judicial review
shall be dismissed.
BACKGROUND
[4]
The
applicant was born in Jaypur, India in 1946 and first applied for
permanent residence in Canada from Bucharest, Romania in
1997. His file was transferred to Cairo, Egypt and then to Buffalo, New York, on October
26, 2001. It was finally sent to New York on August 27, 2003,
where the contested decision was made.
[5]
The
applicant applied for permanent residence under the federal skilled workers
program in two occupations, which are assigned a specific code and criteria
under the National Occupation Classification (NOC), established by Human
Resources Canada: Financial Manager (NOC Code 0111) and Finances Clerk (NOC
Code 1434.3).
[6]
The
applicant was first interviewed on December 1, 2005 and again on November 2,
2006. The applicant was assessed under the former Immigration Act,
R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, repealed in 2002, as well as under the present Act to
determine whether as a skilled worker, the applicant would be able to become
economically established in Canada.
[7]
However,
in neither assessment did the applicant receive sufficient points to qualify
for an immigrant visa to Canada. For his assessment under the criteria set
out in the former Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 (the Immigration
Regulations), the applicant obtained 62 and 52 points for each occupation
respectively, whereas the minimum required to qualify for each occupation was
70 points. Similarly, the assessment based on the present Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations SOR/2002-227 (the IRP Regulations), revealed
that the applicant did not obtain the minimum number of points, currently 67,
required for a permanent resident visa. As a result, his application was denied
and he seeks to have that decision annulled.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[8]
In
arriving at her decision, the Officer evaluated the applicant’s file under two
sets of criteria as follows:
a)
The
criteria of the Immigration Regulations, 1978 pertaining to immigrants
other than members of the family class, Convention refugees seeking settlement,
provincial nominees, and applicants intending to reside in the Province of
Quebec, and
b)
The
criteria of the IRP Regulations, pertaining to federal skilled workers.
[9]
In
addition, the Officer made reference to the applicable sections of each
Regulation and specified the criteria upon which her evaluation was based. Under
paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Immigration Regulations, these criteria include:
education, education and training factor, experience, occupational factor,
arranged employment or designated occupation, the demographic factor, age,
knowledge of the English and French languages and personal suitability. The
results are as follows:
|
Criteria
under Immigration
Regulations
|
NOC Code: 0111
(Finance Manager)
Units Assessed
|
NOC Code: 1434.3 (Finance
Clerk)
Units Assessed
|
Maximum
|
|
Education
|
15
|
15
|
|
|
Education
&
Training Factor
|
15
|
05
|
|
|
Experience
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
Occupational
Factor
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
Arranged
Employment
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
Demographic
Factor
|
08
|
08
|
|
|
Age
|
10
|
10
|
|
|
Knowledge
of English
|
06
|
06
|
|
|
Bonus
(Relative in Canada)
|
05
|
05
|
|
|
Personal
Suitability
|
03
|
03
|
|
|
Total
|
62
|
52
|
70
|
[10]
Moreover,
pursuant to subsections 11(1) and (2), the Officer stated that the applicant
did not have arranged employment in Canada and she did not give
him any unit for occupational factor and experience because she was not
satisfied of the applicant’s claimed experience in both occupations listed in
his application.
[11]
Below
are the results of the Officer’s assessment under the IRP Regulations:
|
|
NOC Code: 0111
(Finance Manager)
Units Assessed
|
NOC Code: 1434.3 (Finance
Clerk)
Units Assessed
|
Maximum
|
|
Age
|
10
|
00
|
|
|
Education
|
20
|
00
|
|
|
Experience
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
Arranged
Employment
|
00
|
00
|
|
|
Official
Language Proficiency
English
French
|
10
|
00
|
|
|
Adaptability
Education of Spouse/Partner
Prior Work/Study in Canada
Arranged Employment
Close Relative in Canada
|
05
|
00
|
|
|
Total
|
45
|
00
|
67
|
[12]
Here
too, the Officer concluded that it was unlikely that the applicant would be
able to become economically established in Canada since he
failed to provide credible evidence of his employment. As a result of which she
did not give him any units of assessment for experience.
[13]
The
decision concludes with a perfunctory paragraph stating that following the
examination of the applicant, the Officer was not satisfied that he met the
requirements of the Act and the Regulations for the reasons explained in the
tables above. However, the Officer also submitted a detailed affidavit dated
March 29, 2007, to which is attached the notes to file maintained on the
Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS). The Officer also filed
a supplementary affidavit dated July 5, 2007.
[14]
The
CAIPS notes provide the details of the Officer’s decision. They point out among
other things that there were serious discrepancies in the information provided
during her initial interview with the applicant on December 1, 2005. Moreover,
during the second interview on November 2, 2006, the Officer concluded that the
applicant was evasive, and adjusted his answers when he was confronted with
inconsistencies in the information that he had provided.
ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
[15]
This
Court has established that decisions of Officers are discretionary and are
consequently subject to a standard of review of patent unreasonableness. This
is particularly true where the Officer raises questions of credibility, as is
the case here (see Arvinderjit Singh v. Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, 2006 FC 1479, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1869 (QL) at paragraph 13 and Zheng v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J.
No. 110 (T.D.) (QL) at paragraph 9).
Did the Officer err by
failing to provide sufficient reasons?
[16]
The
single issue raised by the applicant in his written memorandum is that the Officer
erred by failing to give more details in her reasons for her negative decision.
Relying on the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Hilo v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C.J. No. 228 (C.A.) (QL), counsel
for the applicant argues that the Officer ought to have given reasons for
arriving at her conclusions since it was not privy to the CAIPS notes. In Hilo, above, Mr. Justice
Heald stated as follows:
[…] In my view, the Board was under a
duty to give its reasons for casting doubt upon the appellant's credibility in
clear and unmistakable terms. The Board's credibility assessment quoted supra
is defective because it is couched in vague and general terms. […]
[17]
The
Respondent concedes the right of the applicant to submit a reply to the details
contained in the CAIPS notes, which meet the requirements to provide reasons.
Having reviewed the decision, as well as the CAIPS notes coupled with the
detailed affidavit sworn by the Officer, it is clear that the decision is not
patently unreasonable based on the facts before her. First, it was not patently
unreasonable for the Officer to question the credibility of the applicant in
relation to his employment history. Second, the applicant provided three
different letters of reference which were all almost identical in wording.
Third, one of these letters purported to have been signed by Mr. Donald
Franson, was categorically denied by the latter. The Officer found the
applicant’s explanation unsatisfactory and, there is nothing unreasonable about
this conclusion.
[18]
In
the absence of further evidence by the applicant that the Officer ought to have
been more fulsome in her reasons, I am satisfied that the intervention of the
Court is not warranted. Indeed as I find them, the reasons are stated in clear
and unmistakable terms. This is the reason why I will not deal with the
applicant’s
oral argument on the day of the hearing that refusal letters should always be
accompanied with CAIPS notes.
[19]
There
were no proposed questions for certification and none arise.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that
- The application is
dismissed.
- No question is
certified.
“Michel
Beaudry”
Email this Content