Montréal, Quebec, October 17, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of the decision of a visa officer, dated June 22, 2005, dismissing the applicant’s application for a work permit in Canada.
[2] The applicant is a citizen of India. He received an offer of employment from a company named “Southern Restoration and Renovation Company” (Southern Renovation) to work in Canada as a cement finisher on February 2, 2005. A positive labour market opinion was also obtained on March 30, 2005 from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC), formerly Human Resources and Development Canada (HRDC). Section 11 of IRPA provides that a foreign national must apply to an officer for a visa before entering Canada. In April 2005, the applicant applied for a work permit. A visa officer interviewed the applicant on June 22, 2005.
[3] Sections 200 and 203 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the Regulations) provide the criteria that the visa officer must examine before issuing a work permit to a foreign national. These provisions are reproduced in the Annex. In the present case, no issue is raised concerning the interpretation or scope of these provisions.
[4] Before the interview, the visa officer reviewed the notes on file including electronic correspondence dated May 9, 2005 from Boris Angelov of HRSDC. Mr. Angelov, who originally issued the market opinion, expressed his concerns regarding the applicant’s prospective employer, on the basis of a published newspaper article that mentioned that a group of overseas Filipino workers in Toronto had filed a complaint of recruitment fraud against a Toronto-based employment agency and its owner-operator, Cecilia Agtarap. In this correspondence, Mr. Angelov noted that the owner-operator of Southern Renovation is Norberto Agtarap, ex-husband of Cecilia Agtarap (now known as Cecilia Bautista) and that her former agency “The Sisters Employment” is located next door to Southern Renovation.
[5] Given the unsatisfactory answers obtained from the applicant at the interview, the visa officer was not satisfied that the applicant had a genuine offer of employment or was able to perform the work sought as required by the Regulations.
[6] Where the visa officer’s decision under review involves a finding of fact, the standard of review will be patent unreasonableness. Where the decision involves a decision of mixed fact and law, the standard is reasonableness simpliciter (Boni v. Canada (Ministre de la citoyenneté et de l’immigration), 2006 CAF 68 at para. 8; Yin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 661 at para. 20; Ouafae v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 459 at paras. 19-20. With regard to questions of procedural fairness or natural justice, the correctness standard will always apply (Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539 at para. 100).
[7] In the case at bar, the applicant raises two issues. First, he argues that the visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by relying upon extrinsic evidence, without providing the applicant with an opportunity to respond. Second, he argues that the visa officer’s decision was unreasonable or patently unreasonable in that it was based upon extraneous considerations and faulty reasoning.
Alleged breach of the duty of procedural fairness
[8] The Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (CAIPS) notes contain the following entry, dated May 2, 2005:
HRDC COMMENTS: ONLY MINIMAL ENGLISH SKILLS REQUIRED; PLS DO *NOT* ISSUE ANY WORK PERMIT BEFORE GETTING IN CONTACT WITH BORIS ANGELOV VIA E-MAIL AT BORIS.ANGELOV@HRSDC-RHDCC.GC.CA ; THANK YOU! B.A. / /
[9] Near the end of the CAIPS notes, following the reasons for the visa officer’s decision, the following entry can be found:
W050500004 SML 22-JUN-2005
Addition to above: See file for concerns about employer.
W050500004 SML 22-JUN-2005
[10] The applicant submits that these excerpts from the CAIPS notes indicate that the visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by relying upon extrinsic evidence without giving the applicant the opportunity to respond (Mehta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 1073; Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 174).
[11] At this point, I note that a similar argument was made by counsel and addressed in the following way by the Court in Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 297 (F.C.) (QL), 2006 FC 227:
In order to address this issue, it must be determined whether the officer used extrinsic evidence in coming to a decision. It would be necessary to disclose this evidence to the applicant for a response.
[12] That being said, the respondent contends that a reference in the CAIPS notes to the physical file (which includes the electronic correspondence dated May 9, 2005 from Boris Angelov) neither points to the existence of “hidden information” nor to a breach of natural justice or error of law. The respondent submits that the summary of the interview contained in the CAIPS notes clearly indicate that the visa officer confronted the applicant with her concerns regarding his prospective employer. He argues that there is no evidence to support the applicant’s claims.
[13] I accept the submissions made by the respondent. There was no breach of the duty to act fairly in this case. It is apparent that the refusal to issue a work permit is not based on the content of the newspaper article or the information mentioned by Mr. Angelov in his previous correspondence, but on the inability of the applicant to properly address the visa officer’s concerns with respect to Southern Renovation and the validity of its offer of employment. There is no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that the visa officer had concerns above and beyond the concerns relayed to the applicant at the interview, namely whether the applicant knew anything about paying fees in exchange for an offer of employment.
[14] The CAIPS notes clearly indicate that the visa officer confronted the applicant with her concerns:
What do you know about this company that is hiring you? Whatever I read in the ad, and what friend found out from employer regarding salary and terms of employment.
Did you pay Southern Restoration & Renovations any fees to get this job?
No.
Explained to PA concerns about legitimacy of employer in Cda. PA states again that he did not pay any fees to get this job.
PA states that employer told him that another applicant has been approved by this office to go work for this company.
[15] Furthermore, in her affidavit, the visa officer states that immediately after the interview, she realized that she should have made a reference in the CAIPS notes to the file regarding concerns about the prospective employer. She therefore added a reference to the file that was date-stamped with the same date as that of the interview. She also explains that SML are her initials.
[16] In my view, the evidence shows that the visa officer did not rely on extrinsic evidence in coming to her decision. It also indicates that the visa officer gave the applicant an opportunity to respond to her concerns. The visa officer was concerned that the applicant did not know much about his prospective employer. This was supported by the fact that the applicant had never spoken directly to his prospective employer and that his friend had found the ad through the internet. The visa officer’s conclusions in this regard are not patently unreasonable.
Alleged errors of fact or faulty reasoning
[17] In my opinion, the visa officer could base her refusal to issue a work permit simply on the concerns she had with respect to the bona fide character of the offer made by Southern Renovation. Be that as it may, it is apparent that in this case, the visa officer had further grounds to dismiss the applicant’s application. The applicant submits that her concerns with respect to the ability of the applicant to perform the work sought are unreasonable or patently unreasonable since the applicant had 20 years of experience in cement finishing. The applicant submits that the visa officer indulged herself in speculation. She erred by not finding credible the applicant’s statement to the effect he had never encountered any problems in his claimed line of work. He alleges that the visa officer never explained to him what she meant by “problem”. He also submits that the visa officer erroneously wrote in the CAIPS notes that he worked in South Africa, when, in reality, he worked in Libya.
[18] The respondent submits that the visa officer was not bound by the positive HRSDC labour market opinion, as it constitutes only one of the elements that must be considered by the visa officer. He also argues that the onus was on the applicant to ask the visa officer for specifics if he was confused by her questions. He submits that the visa officer’s error regarding his work experience in Libya was immaterial to the decision.
[19] I accept the submissions made by the respondent. The visa officer based her decision on a number of relevant considerations, each of which is supported by the evidence. Her conclusion is not patently unreasonable. The visa officer was entitled to find that the applicant’s answers with regard to his work experience were unsatisfactory. In this regard, a visa officer’s decision must be given a large measure of deference (see Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1378 at paras. 6-7). Finally, the visa officer’s reference to South Africa instead of Libya is immaterial to the case at bar, as she did not base any of her conclusions on this finding.
[20] For these reasons, the application is dismissed. No question of general importance is raised in this case.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
- The application for judicial review is dismissed.
- No question of general importance shall be certified.
ANNEX
|
200. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an officer shall issue a work permit to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that
(a) the foreign national applied for it in accordance with Division 2;
(b) the foreign national will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9;
(c) the foreign national
(i) is described in section 206, 207 or 208,
(ii) intends to perform work described in section 204 or 205, or
(iii) has been offered employment and an officer has determined under section 203 that the offer is genuine and that the employment is likely to result in a neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada; and
(d) [Repealed, SOR/2004-167, s. 56]
(e) the requirements of section 30 are met.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) does not apply to a foreign national who satisfies the criteria set out in section 206 or paragraph 207(c) or (d).
(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 specific 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, unless all or almost all of the workers involved in the labour dispute are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents and the hiring of workers to replace the workers involved in the labour dispute is not prohibited by the Canadian law applicable in the province where the workers involved in the labour dispute are employed;
(d) the foreign national seeks to enter Canada as a live-in caregiver and the foreign national does not meet the requirements of section 112; or
(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.
203. (1) On application under Division 2 for a work permit made by a foreign national other than a foreign national referred to in subparagraphs 200(1)(c)(i) and (ii), an officer shall determine, on the basis of an opinion provided by the Department of Human Resources Development, if the job offer is genuine and if the employment of the foreign national is likely to have a neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada.
(2) The Department of Human Resources Development shall provide the opinion referred to in subsection (1) on the request of an officer or an employer or group of employers. A request may be made in respect of
(a) an offer of employment to a foreign national; and
(b) offers of employment made, or anticipated to be made, by an employer or group of employers.
(3) An opinion provided by the Department of Human Resources Development shall be based on the following factors:
(a) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to result in direct job creation or job retention for Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
(b) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to result in the creation or transfer of skills and knowledge for the benefit of Canadian citizens or permanent residents;
(c) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to fill a labour shortage;
(d) whether the wages offered to the foreign national are consistent with the prevailing wage rate for the occupation and whether the working conditions meet generally accepted Canadian standards;
(e) whether the employer has made, or has agreed to make, reasonable efforts to hire or train Canadian citizens or permanent residents; and
(f) whether the employment of the foreign national is likely to adversely affect the settlement of any labour dispute in progress or the employment of any person involved in the dispute.
(4) In the case of a foreign national who intends to work in the Province of Quebec, the opinion provided by the Department of Human Resources Development shall be made in concert with the competent authority of that Province.
|
200. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), l’agent délivre un permis de travail à l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis :
a) l’étranger a demandé un permis de travail conformément à la section 2;
b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la partie 9;
c) il se trouve dans l’une des situations suivantes :
(i) il est visé par les articles 206, 207 ou 208,
(ii) il entend exercer un travail visé aux articles 204 ou 205,
(iii) il s’est vu présenter une offre d’emploi et l’agent a, en application de l’article 203, conclu que cette offre est authentique et que l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’avoir des effets positifs ou neutres sur le marché du travail canadien;
d) [Abrogé, DORS/2004-167, art. 56]
e) il satisfait aux exigences prévues à l’article 30.
(2) L’alinéa (1)b) ne s’applique pas à l’étranger qui satisfait aux exigences prévues à l’article 206 ou aux alinéas 207c) ou d).
(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 spécifique pour lequel l’étranger demande le permis est susceptible de nuire au règlement de tout conflit de travail en cours ou à l’emploi de toute personne touchée par ce conflit, à moins que la totalité ou la quasi-totalité des salariés touchés par le conflit de travail ne soient ni des citoyens canadiens ni des résidents permanents et que l’embauche de salariés pour les remplacer ne soit pas interdite par le droit canadien applicable dans la province où travaillent les salariés visés;
d) l’étranger cherche à entrer au Canada et à faire partie de la catégorie des aides familiaux, à moins qu’il ne se conforme à l’article 112;
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 les faits reprochés,
(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.
203. (1) Sur demande de permis de travail présentée conformément à la section 2 par un étranger, autre que celui visé à l’un des sous-alinéas 200(1)c)(i) et (ii), l’agent décide, en se fondant sur l’avis du ministère du Développement des ressources humaines, si l’offre d’emploi est authentique et si l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’avoir des effets positifs ou neutres sur le marché du travail canadien.
(2) Le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines fournit l’avis à la demande de tout employeur, groupe d’employeurs ou agent faite à l’égard :
a) soit de l’offre d’emploi présentée à l’étranger;
b) soit d’offres d’emploi qu’un employeur ou un groupe d’employeurs a présentées ou envisage de présenter.
(3) Le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines fonde son avis sur les facteurs suivants :
a) l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’entraîner la création directe ou le maintien d’emplois pour des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents;
b) l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible d’entraîner le développement ou le transfert de compétences ou de connaissances au profit des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents;
c) l’exécution du travail par l’étranger est susceptible de résorber une pénurie de main-d’oeuvre;
d) le salaire offert à l’étranger correspond aux taux de salaires courants pour cette profession et les conditions de travail qui lui sont offertes satisfont aux normes canadiennes généralement acceptées;
e) l’employeur a fait ou accepté de faire des efforts raisonnables pour embaucher ou former des citoyens canadiens ou des résidents permanents;
f) le travail de l’étranger est susceptible de nuire au règlement d’un conflit de travail en cours ou à l’emploi de toute personne touchée par ce conflit.
(4) Dans le cas de l’étranger qui cherche à travailler dans la province de Québec, le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines établit son avis de concert avec les autorités compétentes de la province.
|
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-7563-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: PARMINDER SINGH VAIREA v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: October 12, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Jaswant Mangat
|
|
|
Ms. Matina Karvellas
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Jaswant Mangat Mississauga, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT |