Date: 20080408
Docket: IMM-6438-06
Citation: 2008 FC 455
Vancouver,
British Columbia, April 8, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
VIREAK
PHORN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr.
Vireak Phorn (“the Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa
Officer Moira Escott (the “Visa Officer”), denying his application for permanent
residence pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C.
2001, c. 27 (the “Act”) and the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, SOR/2002-2007 (the “Regulations”).
[2]
The
Applicant is a Buddhist monk and Cambodian citizen. He entered Canada as a visitor
in December 2001. He has been working as a monk at the Khmer Buddhist Temple in Vaughan, Ontario,
since December 2001.
[3]
The
Applicant applied for permanent residence on March 5, 2005, as a member of the economic
class, as a skilled worker in the occupation of “monk”. By letter dated October
20, 2006, his application was refused on the grounds that he has failed to
obtain the required number of points. The Applicant was awarded 59 points and
the minimum number of points to qualify for permanent residence is 67 points.
The Visa Officer awarded zero points for “arranged employment” out of a maximum
of 10 points. She also awarded zero points for “adaptability”, again out of a
maximum of 10 points.
[4]
In
the refusal letter, the Visa Officer referred to subsection 12(2) of the Act
that provides that a foreign national may be selected as a member of the
economic class on the basis of his or her ability to become economically
established. Subsection 75(1) of the Regulations describes the federal skilled
worker class in terms of ability to become economically established. The
Regulations provide that skilled worker applicants be assessed on the basis of
criteria set out in subsection 76(1). Subsection 76(3) of the Regulations
allows for the exercise of discretion in evaluating an applicant who has not
demonstrated the ability to become economically established in Canada. Although
the Visa Officer considered the exercise of discretion pursuant to subsection
76(3), she did not make a positive determination in that regard.
[5]
The
Applicant raises a number of arguments. He submits that the Visa Officer erred
in interpreting subsection 82(2) of the Regulations, by failing to provide
adequate reasons for her decision, by failing to provide him with the
opportunity to address her concerns about his application, and by importing
discriminatory factors into the exercise of her discretion pursuant to
subsection 76(3), contrary to section 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution
Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c.
11 (the “Charter”).
[6]
The Respondent filed an affidavit from the Visa
Officer as part of his Application Record in this proceeding. At paragraphs 6
to 11, the Visa Officer discussed why the factors of arranged employment and
adaptability did not apply in the Applicant’s case and why she awarded no
points in respect of those factors. Paragraph 6 to 11 provide as follows:
6.
The
factors of arranged employment and adaptability were not applicable in the
applicant’s case. Pursuant to Regulation 82, points for arranged employment are
awarded if the applicant is in a specific situation at the time of the
application as well as at visa issuance.
7.
I did not
award the Applicant points under R82(2)(a) because he did not meet the criteria
of this subsection in that he did not hold a work permit.
8.
Similarly,
I did not award the Applicant points for arranged employment under R82(2)(b)
because he did not hold the work permit described therein.
9.
I did not
award the Applicant points for arranged employment under R82(2)(c) because although
he did work in Canada before being issued a permanent resident visa, no opinion
on an offer of employment was provided from the Department of Human Resources
Development.
10.
Finally, I
awarded no points under R82(2)(d) because the Applicant did not hold a work
permit at the time of assessment.
11.
Since the
Applicant did not meet any of the requirements under R82, I did not award the
applicant points for arranged employment. The Applicant was advised of this in
writing in the refusal letter.
[7]
Section
82 of the Regulations provides as follows:
|
82.
(1) In this section, "arranged employment" means an offer of
indeterminate employment in Canada.
Arranged
employment (10 points)
(2)
Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in
Canada in an occupation that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations
or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix if
they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out the
employment and
a)
the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and:
(i)
there has been a determination by an officer under section 203 that the
performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be likely to result
in a neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada,
(ii)
the skilled worker is currently working in that employment,
(iii)
the work permit is valid at the time an application is made by the skilled
worker for a permanent resident visa as well as at the time the permanent
resident visa, if any, is issued to the skilled worker, and
(iv)
the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the skilled
worker;
b)
the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in
paragraph 204(a) or 205(a) or subparagraph 205(c)(ii) and the circumstances
referred to in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to (iv) apply;
c)
the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being issued a permanent
resident visa and does not hold a work permit and:
(i)
the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an
indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the skilled
worker, and
(ii)
an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion provided
to the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development at the
request of the employer or an officer that:
(A) the offer of employment is genuine,
(B) the employment is not part-time or
seasonal employment, and
(C) the wages offered to the skilled
worker are consistent with the prevailing wage rate for the occupation and
the working conditions meet generally accepted Canadian standards; or
(d)
the skilled worker holds a work permit and
(i)
the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iv) and paragraph
(b) do not apply, and
(ii)
the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (c)(i) and (ii) apply.
|
82.
(1) Pour l’application du présent article, constitue un emploi réservé toute
offre d’emploi au Canada à durée indéterminée.
Emploi
réservé (10 points) :
(2)
Dix points sont attribués au travailleur qualifié pour un emploi réservé
appartenant aux genre de compétence 0 Gestion ou niveaux de compétences A ou
B de la matrice de la Classification nationale des professions, s’il est en
mesure d’exercer les fonctions de l’emploi et s’il est vraisemblable qu’il
acceptera de les exercer, et que l’un des alinéas suivants s’applique :
a)
le travailleur qualifié se trouve au Canada, il est titulaire d’un permis de
travail et les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i)
l’agent a conclu, au titre de l’article 203, que l’exécution du travail par
le travailleur qualifié est susceptible d’entraîner des effets positifs ou
neutres sur le marché du travail canadien,
(ii)
le travailleur qualifié occupe actuellement cet emploi réservé,
(iii)
le permis de travail est valide au moment de la présentation de la demande de
visa de résident permanent et au moment de la délivrance du visa de résident
permanent, le cas échéant,
(iv)
l’employeur a présenté au travailleur qualifié une offre d’emploi d’une durée
indéterminée sous réserve de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent;
b)
le travailleur qualifié se trouve au Canada, il est titulaire du permis de
travail visé aux alinéas 204a) ou 205a) ou au sous-alinéa 205c)(ii) et les
conditions visées aux sous-alinéas a)(ii) à (iv) sont réunies;
c)
le travailleur qualifié n’a pas l’intention de travailler au Canada avant
qu’un visa de résident permanent ne lui soit octroyé, il n’est pas titulaire
d’un permis de travail et les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
(i)
l’employeur a présenté au travailleur qualifié une offre d’emploi d’une durée
indéterminée sous réserve de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent,
(ii)
un agent a approuvé cette offre sur le fondement d’un avis émis par le
ministère du Développement des ressources humaines, à la demande de
l’employeur, à sa demande ou à celle d’un autre agent, où il est affirmé que
:
(A) l’offre d’emploi est véritable,
(B) l’emploi n’est pas saisonnier ou à
temps partiel,
(C) la rémunération offerte au
travailleur qualifié est conforme au taux de rémunération en vigueur pour la
profession et les conditions de l’emploi satisfont aux normes canadiennes
généralement acceptées;
d)
le travailleur qualifié est titulaire d’un permis de travail et, à la fois :
(i)
les conditions visées aux sous-alinéas a)(i) à (iv) et à l’alinéa b) ne sont
pas remplies,
(ii)
les conditions visées aux sous-alinéas c)(i) et (ii) sont réunies.
|
[8]
The
Applicant entered Canada as a visitor. When he applied for permanent
residence, his visa was subject to the following conditions:
1.
Prohibited
from engaging in employment in Canada.
2.
Prohibited
from attending any educational institutions and taking any academic,
professional or vocational training courses.
3.
Must leave
Canada by 24 June 2006.
[9]
The
visa also was endorsed with the following under the heading “Remarks”:
Temporary resident status maintained as
per R183(6). Authorized to perform religious duties for the Khmer Buddhist
Temple of Ontario.
[10]
The
Act and the Regulations provide the statutory framework for the granting of
permanent residence as a member of the skilled worker class. According to the
recent decision in the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, the decision of the officer, as an administrative decision-maker,
is to be assessed on the standard of either correctness or reasonableness. In
this case, the issue of statutory interpretation will be assessed on the
standard of correctness and the issue of the exercise of discretion will be
assessed on the standard of reasonableness.
[11]
The
Applicant argues that the Visa Officer erred in interpreting paragraphs
82(2)(a) and 83(1)(c) and (e) of the Regulations. He argues that the correct
reading of these provisions of the Regulations shows that Parliament intended
that he be exempt from the requirement to obtain a work permit and a Labour
Market Opinion (“LMO”) as conditions of eligibility to become a permanent
resident. He submits that he held a valid work permit, authorizing him to
perform religious duties and there was no need for him to obtain a LMO.
[12]
Section
1 of the Regulations defines “work permit” as follows:
|
"work
permit" means a written authorization to work in Canada issued by an officer to a foreign national.
|
Document
délivré par un agent à un étranger et autorisant celui-ci à travailler au
Canada.
|
[13]
Subsection
8 provides as follows:
|
(1)
A foreign national may not enter Canada
to work without first obtaining a work permit.
Exception
(2)
Subsection (1) does not apply to a foreign national who is authorized under
section 186 to work in Canada without a work permit.
|
(1)
L’étranger ne peut entrer au Canada pour y travailler que s’il a
préalablement obtenu un permis de travail.
Exception
(2) Cette obligation ne s’applique pas
à l’étranger qui est autorisé à travailler au Canada sans permis de travail
au titre de l’article 186.
|
[14]
Subsection
186(l) of the Regulations provides as follows:
|
186.
A foreign national may work in Canada
without a work permit:
(l)
as a person who is responsible for assisting a congregation or group in the
achievement of its spiritual goals and whose main duties are to preach
doctrine, perform functions related to gatherings of the congregation or
group or provide spiritual counselling;
|
186.
L’étranger peut travailler au Canada sans permis de travail :
(l) à titre de personne chargée d’aider
une communauté ou un groupe à atteindre ses objectifs spirituels et dont les
fonctions consistent principalement à prêcher une doctrine, à exercer des
fonctions relatives aux rencontres de cette communauté ou de ce groupe ou à
donner des conseils d’ordre spirituel;
|
[15]
The
Applicant did not have a work permit when he applied for permanent residence,
rather he held a visa which both prohibited him from engaging in employment in Canada and
authorized him to perform religious duties for the Khmer Buddhist Temple in Vaughan.
[16]
The
combined effect of sections 2, 8 and subsection 186(1) of the Regulations,
relative to the Applicant, is that he is only allowed to perform religious
duties for the Khmer Buddhist Temple. Insofar as this
is “work”, he is allowed to work in Canada. However, the endorsed visa of the Applicant is
not a “work permit” within the regulatory scheme established by the Regulations.
The Visa Officer correctly interpreted and applied the Regulations. The
decision is consistent with that reached by the Court in Tong v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 309 F.T.R. 209.
[17]
I am
not persuaded that the Visa Officer erred in the exercise of her discretion
pursuant to subsection 76(3). There is no evidence that she relied on extraneous
or irrelevant factors, or ignored any evidence that was before her.
[18]
It
is not necessary to consider the constitutional arguments raised by the
Applicant. This matter essentially involves a question of statutory
interpretation and can be disposed of on that basis.
[19]
In
the result, the application for judicial review is dismissed, there is no
question for certification arising.
JUDGMENT
This application for judicial
review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
“E. Heneghan”
Email this Content