Docket: IMM-9085-23
Citation: 2024 FC 2057
Ottawa, Ontario, December 18, 2024
PRESENT: Madam Justice Sadrehashemi
BETWEEN: |
HOUMAN ASADI BOROUJENI |
Applicant |
and |
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Houman Asadi Boroujeni, applied for a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer”
) refused the application principally on the grounds that Mr. Boroujeni could not “adequately perform the proposed work”
due to insufficient evidence of his English language ability. The parties agree, as do I, that I ought to review the substance of the Officer’s decision on a reasonableness standard. Having considered the evidence before the Officer, I find the Officer’s determination that there was insufficient evidence of English language ability, a requirement to perform the work being sought, was reasonable and determinative of the application.
[2] The requirement that an officer be satisfied that an individual can perform the work sought is found in paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. This necessarily can include a person’s ability to communicate in a language required for the job (see for example Sen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 777). The Officer’s findings on language ability are determinative because paragraph 200(3)(a) of the IRPR states that an officer “shall not issue a work permit to a foreign national if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the foreign national is unable to perform the work sought”
. As I have found the Officer’s determination on the ability to do work sought to be reasonable, it is unnecessary for me to address Mr. Boroujeni’s other arguments.
[3] Mr. Bouroujeni is a citizen of Iran. He has an advanced degree in architecture and has been the owner and operator of a wooden cabinet shop for over a decade. Mr. Bouroujeni applied to work as a carpenter-contractor at a company in Calgary. This company obtained a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (“LMIA”
) for Mr. Bouroujeni to work as a carpenter. The LMIA indicates that verbal and written English are a requirement for the job. The employment contract sets out several job duties including: supervising workers and projects, training staff, and ensuring that health and safety regulations are followed. The Officer found that English would be essential for the supervisor role in order to be able to communicate with employees and customers, and in the case of an emergency.
[4] Mr. Bouroujeni provided no evidence of his English language ability in the application other than the checked box on the work permit application form indicating that he could communicate in English. There is no evidence of schooling in English, experience working in English, explanation of his level of English fluency, nor English language testing in the record before the Officer.
[5] Mr. Bouroujeni argued that there is no evidence that the job being sought required reading or writing in complex English. The Officer did not specify the level of English required for the job being sought, but found that English was essential for being able to supervise, communicate with employees and customers, and in emergency situations. It was reasonable to find that these duties require some level of English language knowledge.
[6] Similar to this Court’s reasoning in Nguyen v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1852, I find that because there was no evidence to explain Mr. Boroujeni’s English language ability and the job required some level of English proficiency, it was reasonable for the Officer to find that they were not satisfied that he would be able to adequately perform the proposed work.
Email this Content