Docket: IMM-923-16
Citation:
2016 FC 1219
Fredericton, New Brunswick, November 2, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Bell
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
LI BIAN
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered orally from the Bench on October 17, 2016 in Toronto)
I.
Overview
[1]
This is an application for judicial review of a visa
officer’s [the Officer] refusal of Li Bian’s [Mr. Bian] application for a
permanent resident visa under the Canadian Experience Class [CEC].
[2]
For the reasons herein, I would allow the
application for judicial review.
II.
Context
[3]
Mr. Bian applied for permanent resident status
on the basis that he had completed one year of work experience as an Assistant
Buyer for Libra & Aquarius Inc. He applied under the National Occupation
Classification [NOC] 6222 - Retail and Wholesale Buyers category, which
qualifies Mr. Bian under CEC. In rejecting Mr. Bian’s application, the Officer reasoned
his duties more closely resembled those of NOC 1524 – Purchasing and Inventory
Control Workers, which does not qualify Mr. Bian under CEC.
III.
Issue and Standard of Review
[4]
The sole issue before this Court is whether the
Officer’s decision is reasonable. That is, is the decision justified,
transparent and intelligible and does it fall within a range of possible, acceptable
outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and the law (Dunsmuir
v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para 47, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 [Dunsmuir]).
IV.
Analysis
[5]
In the half-page rejection letter, the Officer
advised Mr. Bian as follows:
Your application was assessed based on the
occupation which you identified as part of your skilled work experience in
Canada:
I am not satisfied that you meet the skilled
work experience requirement because you did not provide sufficient evidence
that you have performed the lead statement and performed a substantial number
of the main duties for NOC 6222 while you were at the employment of Libra &
Aquarius.
[6]
The Officer then made the following concluding
observations:
Following an examination of your
application, I am not satisfied that you meet the requirements of the Act and
Regulations for the reasons explained above. I am therefore refusing
your application.
[My emphasis.]
[7]
I note that “the reasons
explained above” merely constitute three lines, in which the Officer
refers to NOC 6222 and informs Mr. Bian that he does not meet the duties under that
category. I am aware that the Officer’s notes are meant to complement the
refusal letter. However, the notes simply list the statements made by the
employer in support of Mr. Bian’s application. They make no reference to the
duties associated with NOC 6222. In fact, the Officer spends considerable time
explaining the duties of NOC 1524, after which he concludes that Mr. Bian more
appropriately meets that category. He gives no consideration to the possibility
that the duties outlined in NOC 6222 and NOC 1524 might overlap.
[8]
While the Officer undertook a detailed
assessment of the duties attached to NOC 1524, he conducted no such analysis in
relation to NOC 6222, the very provision under which Mr. Bian applied. In the
circumstances, I am of the view that neither Mr. Bian, nor this Court, is in
any position to understand the reason(s) for the refusal. I therefore conclude
the decision fails to meet the requirements of justification, transparency and
intelligibility and would allow the application for judicial review.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the
application for judicial review is allowed without costs. The matter is referred
to another visa officer for redetermination. No question is certified.
“B. Richard Bell”
Email this Content