Docket: IMM-780-17
Citation:
2017 FC 782
Ottawa, Ontario, August 24, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GAGANDEEP KAUR
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
The Applicant applies for leave and judicial
review under section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”) of a Visa Officer’s decision of February 15, 2017,
in New Delhi, refusing her application for a temporary work permit as an
in-home caregiver on the basis that the Applicant was unable to demonstrate
that she adequately met the job requirements of her prospective employment.
II.
Background
[2]
The Applicant, Gagandeep Kaur, is a citizen of
India. She submitted an application for a temporary work permit as an in-home
caregiver in November 2016.
[3]
The Applicant’s application was reviewed by the
Visa Section of the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi, India, and on
December 22, 2016, it was determined that an interview was required to assess
the information on file.
[4]
The Applicant attended at the High Commission in
New Delhi on February 15, 2017, to be interviewed. That interview is described
in detail in the Visa Officer’s Global Case management System (“GCMS”) Notes, and
the Visa Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had the requisite
experience, noting that:
I am not satisfied that she has experience
because she was unable to explain her duties in any detail. She was unable to
explain what she studied in the stated nanny course. I am, therefore, not
satisfied that she has diploma or training as a caregiver. I gave her an
opportunity to respond. She said, “I have done the jobs in the home and
hospital My employer hire me because they want a Punjabi nanny who teach
Punjabi culture and cook Punjabi food.” Concerns persist. Refused.
[5]
The Visa Officer refused the work permit
application by letter dated February 15, 2017, on the basis that the Applicant
was not able to demonstrate that she adequately meets the job requirements of
her prospective employment.
[6]
The Visa Officer also indicated in his
electronic notes that he had concerns about the Applicant’s English proficiency
and the genuineness of her IELTS test scores/certificate.
III.
Issues
[7]
The issues are:
- Is the Visa
Officer’s decision reasonable?
- Is there a
breach of procedural fairness?
IV.
Standard of Review
[8]
The decision that the Applicant failed to meet
the job requirement of English language proficiency or that she was unable to
explain her employment duties or what she studied in a nanny course she
undertook, involve questions of fact or mixed law and fact and are reviewable
on the standard of reasonableness.
[9]
The question of breach of procedural fairness is
reviewable on the standard of correctness.
V.
Analysis
[10]
The parties agreed at the outset of the hearing
that the applicable section of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, (SOR /2002-227) (“Immigration Regulations”), is section 200
and specifically subsection 200(3) and 200(3)(a), which deals with exceptions to
the issuance of work permits in respect of foreign nationals making
applications for work permits.
[11]
Subsection 200(3) reads:
|
Exceptions
(3) An officer shall not issue a
work permit to a foreign national if
(a) there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought;
(b) in the case of a foreign
national who intends to work in the Province of Quebec and does not hold a Certificat
d’acceptation du Québec, a determination under section 203 is required
and the laws of that Province require that the foreign national hold a Certificat
d’acceptation du Québec;
(c) the work that the foreign
national intends to perform is likely to adversely affect the settlement of
any labour dispute in progress or the employment of any person involved in
the dispute;
(d) [Repealed, SOR/2017-78, s. 8]
(e) the foreign national has
engaged in unauthorized study or work in Canada or has failed to comply with
a condition of a previous permit or authorization unless
(i) a period of six months has
elapsed since the cessation of the unauthorized work or study or failure to
comply with a condition,
(ii) the study or work was
unauthorized by reason only that the foreign national did not comply with
conditions imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs 185(b)(i) to
(iii) or paragraph 185(c);
(iii) section 206 applies to
them; or
(iv) the foreign national was
subsequently issued a temporary resident permit under subsection 24(1) of the
Act;
(f) in the case of a foreign
national referred to in subparagraphs (1)(c)(i) to (iii), the issuance of a
work permit would be inconsistent with the terms of a federal-provincial
agreement that apply to the employment of foreign nationals;
(f.1) in the case of a foreign
national referred to in subparagraph (1)(c)(ii.1), the fee referred to in
section 303.1 has not been paid or the information referred to in section
209.11 has not been provided before the foreign national makes an application
for a work permit;
(g) the foreign national has
worked in Canada for one or more periods totalling four years, unless
(i) a period of forty-eight
months has elapsed since the day on which the foreign national accumulated
four years of work in Canada,
(ii) the foreign national intends
to perform work that would create or maintain significant social, cultural or
economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent
residents, or
(iii) the foreign national
intends to perform work pursuant to an international agreement between Canada
and one or more countries, including an agreement concerning seasonal
agricultural workers;
(g.1) the foreign national intends
to work for an employer who, on a regular basis, offers striptease, erotic
dance, escort services or erotic massages; or
(h) the foreign national intends to
work for an employer who is
(i) subject to a determination
made under subsection 203(5), if two years have not elapsed since the day on
which that determination was made,
(ii) ineligible under paragraph
209.95(1)(b), or
(iii) in default of any amount payable
in respect of an administrative monetary penalty, including if the employer
fails to comply with a payment agreement for the payment of that amount.
|
Exceptions
(3) Le permis de travail ne peut être
délivré à l’étranger dans les cas suivants :
a) l’agent a des motifs raisonnables de
croire que l’étranger est incapable d’exercer l’emploi pour lequel le permis
de travail est demandé;
b) l’étranger qui cherche à travailler
dans la province de Québec ne détient pas le certificat d’acceptation
qu’exige la législation de cette province et est assujetti à la décision
prévue à l’article 203;
c) le travail que l’étranger entend
exercer est susceptible de nuire au règlement de tout conflit de travail en
cours ou à l’emploi de toute personne touchée par ce conflit;
d) [Abrogé, DORS/2017-78, art. 8]
e) il a poursuivi des études ou exercé un
emploi au Canada sans autorisation ou permis ou a enfreint les conditions de
l’autorisation ou du permis qui lui a été délivré, sauf dans les cas suivants
:
(i) une période de six mois s’est écoulée
depuis soit la cessation des études ou du travail faits sans autorisation ou
permis, soit le non-respect des conditions de l’autorisation ou du permis,
(ii) ses études ou son travail n’ont pas
été autorisés pour la seule raison que les conditions visées à l’alinéa
185a), aux sous-alinéas 185b)(i) à (iii) ou à l’alinéa 185c) n’ont pas été
respectées,
(iii) il est visé par l’article 206,
(iv) il s’est subséquemment vu délivrer un
permis de séjour temporaire au titre du paragraphe 24(1) de la Loi;
f) s’agissant d’un étranger visé à l’un
des sous-alinéas (1)c)(i) à (iii), la délivrance du permis de travail ne
respecte pas les conditions prévues à l’accord fédéral-provincial applicable
à l’embauche de travailleurs étrangers;
f.1) s’agissant d’un étranger visé au
sous-alinéa (1)c)(ii.1), les frais visés à l’article 303.1 n’ont pas été
payés ou les renseignements visés à l’article 209.11 n’ont pas été fournis
avant que la demande de permis de travail de l’étranger n’ait été faite;
g) l’étranger a travaillé au Canada
pendant une ou plusieurs périodes totalisant quatre ans, sauf si, selon le
cas :
(i) au moins 48 mois se sont écoulés
depuis la fin de la période de quatre ans,
(ii) il entend exercer un travail qui
permettrait de créer ou de conserver des débouchés ou des avantages sociaux,
culturels ou économiques pour les citoyens canadiens ou les résidents
permanents,
(iii) il entend exercer un travail visé
par un accord international conclu entre le Canada et un ou plusieurs pays, y
compris un accord concernant les travailleurs agricoles saisonniers;
g.1) l’étranger entend travailler pour un
employeur qui offre, sur une base régulière, des activités de danse nue ou
érotique, des services d’escorte ou des massages érotiques;
h) l’étranger entend travailler pour un
employeur qui :
(i) soit a fait l’objet d’une conclusion
aux termes du paragraphe 203(5), s’il ne s’est pas écoulé deux ans depuis la
date à laquelle la conclusion a été formulée,
(ii) soit est inadmissible en application
de l’alinéa 209.95(1)b),
(iii) soit est en défaut de paiement de
tout montant exigible au titre d’une sanction administrative pécuniaire,
notamment s’il n’a pas respecté tout accord relatif au versement de ce
montant.
|
A.
Reasonableness & Procedural Fairness
[12]
The Visa Officer decided that the Applicant was
unable to demonstrate that she adequately meets the job requirements of her
prospective employment, that her answers to a number of questions were
unresponsive and as well demonstrated an inability to communicate effectively in
English, contrary to her IELTS English Language test certificate level 5
proficiency rating, which raised credibility concerns.
[13]
The Applicant argues that the Visa Officer
failed to allow the Applicant an opportunity to address the concerns about the
genuineness of the IELTS test scores and that, contrary to the Visa Officer’s
decision that she showed almost no proficiency in English and was unable to
provide details of her work requirements and training, the Applicant in fact
did so.
[14]
Moreover, the Applicant argues that the glass
barrier used in the interview booth prevented her from hearing the Visa Officer
clearly and that the Visa Officer spoke very fast, was angry and frustrated
when asked to repeat questions, and appeared disinterested in the Applicant’s
answers generally.
[15]
The Applicant also states that the Work Permit
Application filed included substantial supporting documents, including
objective evidence of her English language proficiency in the form of the IELTS
English language test certificate showing she achieved an overall score of CLB
5 for her English Language ability, a diploma certificate confirming that she
has successfully completed a live-in caregiver course and reference letter in
proof of her past work experience.
[16]
The Respondent answers that the Applicant failed
to establish that she adequately meets the job requirements of her prospective
employment.
[17]
Further, while the Applicant argues that the
glass barrier in the interview booth prevented her from hearing the Visa Officer
clearly, she did not raise this as a concern during the interview, nor does the
record show that the Visa Officer’s demeanor was unreasonable or gives a
reasonable apprehensive of bias.
[18]
The essence of the Respondent’s argument is that
the substantive basis for the Visa Officer’s negative decision is that the
Applicant could not satisfy the job requirements and her inability to describe
her relevant training – it was the Applicant’s job to put her best foot forward
and she failed to do so.
[19]
It is well settled that the level of procedural
fairness owed to visa applicants is low and does not generally require that
applicants be granted an opportunity to address a visa officer’s concerns. This
level of procedural fairness reflects the fact that visa applications do not raise
substantive rights, as applicants do not have an unqualified right to enter
Canada, and that applicants may reapply for a work permit (Sulce v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1132 at para 10).
[20]
It is also well settled that it is not the Court’s
role to reweigh evidence.
[21]
The problem with the Respondent’s position here
is that the Visa Officer clearly raised credibility concerns about the
Applicant’s English language IELTS certificate and her ability to perform her
job responsibilities, yet effectively gave her no opportunity to address at
least his credibility concerns regarding her English proficiency.
[22]
Both parties referred to the Canadian Government
guidelines, Integrity concerns with respect to language test results (page 78
of the Applicant’s Record) and Foreign workers: Assessing language requirements
(pages 90, 91 of the Applicant’s Record).
[23]
The relevant excerpts are as follows:
If you are not satisfied as to the
applicant’s language proficiency, but there is insufficient evidence to
establish fraud or malfeasance in the testing procedures for the case in
question and to substantiate a refusal for misrepresentation, then inform the
applicant of your concerns and, in coordination with the testing agency,
provide an opportunity for the applicant to take a second test at the testing
agency’s expense and with visa office supervision. If the applicant refuses the
third-party language testing option, then refuse the application for
misrepresentation, given the discrepancy between the test scores and the actual
language abilities.
Page 79
An applicant’s language ability can be
assessed through an interview or official testing such as IELTS/TEF or in-house
missing testing practice. In deciding to require proof of language ability, the
officer’s notes should refer to the LMIA requirements, working conditions as
described in the job offer and NOC requirements for the specific occupation, in
determining what precise level of language requirement is necessary to perform
the work sought. System notes must clearly indicate the officer’s language
assessment, and in the case of a refusal, clearly show a detailed analysis on
how the applicant failed to satisfy the officer that they would be able to
perform the work sought.
Page 92
[24]
While these are only guidelines and not legal
requirements, the failure to clearly show a detailed analysis on how the
applicant failed to satisfy the officer that they would be able to perform the
work sought is obviously missing, in that the decision is not justified, transparent
and intelligible on this front, such that it is neither reasonable nor correct.
[25]
Moreover, contrary to the Visa Officer’s
conclusion that the Applicant has almost no
proficiency in English, his GCMS notes demonstrate the opposite, particularly when
one reasonably and objectively looks at the level 5 proficiency of the IELTS
certificate:
|
Band score
|
Skill level
|
Description
|
|
5
|
Modest user
|
The test taker has an effective
command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriate usage and
misunderstandings. They can use and understand fairly complex language,
particularly in familiar situations.
|
[26]
The Officer’s decision was unreasonable.
Email this Content