[1]Mr. Jay Mahendra Padia (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”), denying his application for a permanent resident visa pursuant to subsection 11.2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. In 2018, he applied for a permanent resident visa under the Federal Skilled Workers Class.
[2]The Officer denied the application on the basis that the evidence did not show that the Applicant had acquired the experience required under the National Occupational Classification code.
[3]The decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, following the directions in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 (S.C.C.).
[4]The Applicant argues that the decision is unreasonable because it lacks “reasons”
.
[5]The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits that the Officer’s conclusion about the sufficiency of the evidence is reasonable.
[6]I agree substantially with the submissions of the Applicant that the decision fails to meet the reasonableness standard because the decision is silent as to the analysis of the evidence presented by the Applicant.
[7]I agree with the Applicant that the presumption that a decision maker has “considered”
the evidence submitted does not replace a duty to clearly, and sometimes briefly, say why that evidence is insufficient.
[8]It is not necessary to address the other arguments advanced by the parties.
[9]In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision will be set aside and the matter remitted to another officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification.
Email this Content