Docket: IMM-9107-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2021
Toronto, Ontario, December 12, 2024
PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Battista
BETWEEN: |
SAFDARHUSAIN MOHAMMEDHUSAIN SAYED |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
(Delivered orally from the bench on December 12, 2024.
Edited for grammar and syntax.)
[1] The Applicant’s work permit application was refused on four grounds, leading the visa officer (Officer) to conclude that the Applicant would not leave Canada at the end of the period authorized for his stay.
[2] For the reasons that follow, all four justifications for the decision are erroneous, rendering the decision unreasonable (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65), and the application for judicial review is granted. As such, it is not necessary to deal with the allegations raised by the Applicant regarding the use of Chinook technology.
[3] First, the Officer’s finding that the Applicant does not have significant family ties outside of Canada is contradicted by the fact that the Applicant’s entire family is residing in India. This finding is therefore unreasonable.
[4] Second, the Officer failed to explain their conclusion that the Applicant’s employment situation failed to show that he is financially established in his country of residence in light of evidence that he was employed as a cook in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
[5] Third, the Officer’s finding regarding the Applicant’s immigration status is not transparent given the evidence that he held valid temporary residence in the UAE and demonstrated compliance with immigration conditions.
[6] Finally, the Officer’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence that he would be able to adequately perform the proposed work lacks justification. The Applicant was seeking a role as a food service supervisor and provided evidence of working in the hospitality industry as a chef. His prospective employment under the National Occupational Classification code 62020 required education or “several years of experience in food preparation or service.”
The Officer provided no justification for their finding that the Applicant did not meet this requirement in light of the evidence provided.
[7] Based on these unreasonable findings, the application for judicial review is granted.
Email this Content