|
Date: 20250401 |
|
Docket: IMM-13035-23
Citation: 2025 FC 596 |
|
Ottawa, Ontario, April 1, 2025 |
|
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan |
|
BETWEEN: |
|
JYOTJEET SINGH |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
REASONS AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Jyotjeet Singh (the “Applicant”
) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”
) refusing his application for permanent residency, made pursuant to section 87.1 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”
). The decision was made on August 31, 2023.
[2] According to the affidavit of the Applicant, he applied for reconsideration of the decision on September 4, 2023. On October 4, 2023, the reconsideration request was refused.
[3] The Applicant filed his application for leave and judicial review on October 12, 2023, and he sought an extension of time within which to seek leave and judicial review of the decision made on August 31, 2023.
[4] Leave was granted in this matter by an Order issued on September 19, 2023. That Order granted the requested extension of time.
[5] In his application for leave and judicial review, the Applicant referred to the decision of August 31, 2023, as the “subject”
of this application. In their respective memoranda the Applicant and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”
) addressed their arguments to the “decision”
of August 31, 2023 and not to the decision made upon the reconsideration request.
[6] The following reasons will only respond to submissions about the decision of August 31, 2023.
[7] The Applicant applied for permanent residence in the National Occupational Classification (“NOC”
) 13110, as an administrative assistant.
[8] The Officer refused the application on the grounds that the Applicant did not perform the duties set out in the NOC 13110. In particular, the Officer found that he did not meet the requirements set out in paragraphs 87.1(2)(b) and (c) of the Regulations, as follows:
Member of the class
|
Qualité
|
(2) A foreign national is a member of the Canadian experience class if
|
(2) Fait partie de la catégorie de l’expérience canadienne l’étranger qui satisfait aux exigences suivantes :
|
…
|
[…]
|
(b) during that period of employment they performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification;
|
b) pendant cette période d’emploi, il a accompli l’ensemble des tâches figurant dans l’énoncé principal établi pour la profession dans les descriptions des professions de la Classification nationale des professions;
|
(c) during that period of employment they performed a substantial number of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the National Occupational Classification, including all of the essential duties;
|
c) pendant cette période d’emploi, il a exercé une partie appréciable des fonctions principales de la profession figurant dans les descriptions des professions de la Classification nationale des professions, notamment toutes les fonctions essentielles;
|
…
|
[…]
|
[9] The Applicant submits that the Officer fettered his discretion, and that the decision is unreasonable, based on his evidence about the duties he performed.
[10] The Applicant further argues that the Officer’s reasons are not intelligible, and that the reasoning for the decision does not “add up”
.
[11] The Respondent submits that the decision is reasonable.
[12] The merits of the decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.
[13] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review “bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility — and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on that decision”
; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99.
[14] The Applicant submitted evidence about his duties in his employment in Canada. The Officer made a general statement, expressing dissatisfaction that the Applicant had performed “the lead statement and a significant number of the main duties of their declared NOC for this period of employment.”
[15] In my opinion, this is a conclusion with no explanation, contrary to the teachings in Vavilov, supra at paragraph102. The decision does not disclose a line of analysis. Without analysis, the decision cannot be reasonable.
[16] In the result, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision will be set aside and the matter remitted to a different officer for redetermination. There is no question proposed for certification.
Email this Content