Ottawa, Ontario, January 23, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] This is an application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act), for judicial review of a decision of a visa officer, dated May 26, 2006, refusing the applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker.
[2] For the following reasons, I am satisfied that this application for judicial review should be allowed.
BACKGROUND
[3] Mr. Singh (the applicant) is a citizen of India whose occupation is that of Sikh priest.
[4] The applicant first arrived in Canada on a visitor’s visa on December 31, 2002. He was also issued a visitor’s record allowing him to temporarily perform religious duties in Edmonton, Alberta, and requiring him to depart by June 30, 2005. On October 21, 2004, his application for a permanent resident visa as a skilled worker was received at the Immigration Regional Program Center in Buffalo, New York.
[5] On May 26, 2006, his application was denied by Nora Egan (the visa officer), on the ground that he did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada under the skilled worker class.
[6] Skilled worker applicants are assessed under the criteria set out at subsection 76(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227 (the Regulations) and require a minimum of 67 points to qualify for immigration. The visa officer awarded the applicant 10 out of 10 points on the age factor, 20 out of 25 points for education and 21 out of 21 points for his experience. Only 8 points out of 24 were awarded for official language proficiency, and no points were awarded for either adaptability or arranged employment. With a total of 59 points, the applicant fell short of the required 67 points needed to satisfy the visa officer that he could become economically established in Canada.
ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
[7] In this application for judicial review, the following issues must be considered:
A) Should the applicant be permitted to introduce in these proceedings evidence not before the visa officer?
B) Did the visa officer make a reviewable error by denying the applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[8] It is well established in law that the decision of a visa officer whether or not to grant a permanent resident visa is a discretionary decision based essentially on a factual assessment. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in Jang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1575, 2001 FCA 312 at paragraph 12:
An application to be admitted to Canada as an immigrant gives rise to a discretionary decision on the part of a visa officer, which is required to be made on the basis of specific statutory criteria. Where that statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose, courts should not interfere (Maple Lodge Farms Limited v. Government of Canada et al [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 at pages 7-8; To v. Canada, [1996] F.C.J. No. 696 (F.C.A.).
[9] In Kniazeva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.C.J. No. 336, 2006 FC 268, Justice Yves de Montigny recognized that patent unreasonableness was the proper standard to review a visa officer’s decision on an application for a permanent resident visa under the skilled worker class. He noted at paragraph 15:
[...] This Court has consistently held that the particular expertise of visa officers dictates a deferential approach when reviewing their decisions. There is no doubt in my mind that the assessment of an Applicant for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker Class is an exercise of discretion that should be given a high degree of deference. To the extent that this assessment has been done in good faith, in accordance with the principles of natural justice applicable, and without relying on irrelevant or extraneous considerations, the decision of the visa officer should be reviewed on the standard of patent unreasonableness: Postolati v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 345, 2003 FCT 251; Singh v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 441, 2003 FCT 312; Nehme v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2004] F.C.J. No. 49, 2004 FC 64; Bellido v. Canada (M.C.I.),2005 FC 452, [2005] F.C.J. No. 572 (QL).
[10] However, where concerns are raised over an alleged breach of procedural fairness, the proper standard of review is correctness. If this Court determines a breach of procedural fairness occurred, it must return the decision to the first instance decision-maker for a re-determination (Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539).
ANALYSIS
A) Should the applicant be permitted to introduce in these proceedings evidence not before the visa officer?
[11] Before turning to the merit of the application, I must first address the applicant’s attempt to introduce in these proceedings evidence not before the visa officer. More specifically, the applicant seeks to introduce as evidence an email reply allegedly received by a co-worker of the applicant, from the Ministerial Enquiries Division of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[12] It is settled law that, barring exceptional circumstances, evidence that was not before the decision-maker is not admissible before the Court in a judicial review proceeding (Asafov v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] F.C.J. No. 713). As Justice Gilles Létourneau held in Bekker v. Canada, [2004] F.C.J. No. 819 (2004), 2004 FCA 186, at paragraph 11:
Judicial review proceedings are limited in scope. They are not trial de novo proceedings whereby determination of new issues can be made on the basis of freshly adduced evidence. As Rothstein J.A. said in Gitxsan Treaty Society v. Hospital Employees' Union, [2000] 1 F.C. 135, at paragraph 15, "the essential purpose of judicial review is the review of decisions" and, I would add, to merely ascertain their legality: see also Offshore Logistics Inc. v. Intl. Longshoremen's Assoc. 269 (2000), 257 N.R. 338 (F.C.A.). This is the reason why, barring exceptional circumstances such as bias or jurisdictional questions, which may not appear on the record, the reviewing Court is bound by and limited to the record that was before the judge or the Board. Fairness to the parties and the court or tribunal under review dictates such a limitation.
[13] The question therefore becomes whether there are exceptional circumstances in this case that would permit the introduction of this new evidence. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant should be allowed to submit this new evidence.
[14] While the email in question was sent to a third party and does not include the original inquiry, nor refers to the applicant in any way, it discloses information that is highly relevant to this case, as it concerns the interpretation by Citizenship and Immigration Canada of a section of the Regulations, which is contrary to that of the visa officer.
[15] More importantly, the fact that this evidence was not before the decision-maker may not be entirely relevant in this case. While it was the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that he meets the requirements of the Act and the Regulations to be awarded a permanent resident visa, it was not the responsibility of the applicant to explain to the visa officer what those requirements entail. In other words, it was not the applicant’s responsibility to pass along to the visa officer the reply from the Ministerial Enquiries Division stating that priests are exempt from the requirement to have their job offer validated by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (now Human Resources and Social Development Canada or “HRSDC”) and that they should still be granted points for arranged employment if they can show a properly prepared job offer. If that is indeed the proper interpretation of the Regulations, something that I will consider in the next section, then the applicant was entitled to assume that the visa officer would know it and to feel confident that there was no need to submit this email in support of his application.
B) Did the visa officer make a reviewable error by denying the applicant’s application for a permanent resident visa?
[16] Turning now to the substance of the visa officer’s decision, the applicant submits that the visa officer failed to properly interpret the Act and the Regulations in awarding 0 points for arranged employment and 0 points for adaptability. The applicant maintains that he should have received 5 points for adaptability by virtue of his previous employment in Canada, and that he should have been awarded 10 points for arranged employment. The offer of employment submitted to the visa officer should have been sufficient to award these points as religious workers do not require a work permit to be allowed to work in Canada.
[17] The respondent for his part maintains that while religious workers are temporarily exempt from requiring work permits to perform religious duties in Canada, they are not eligible to receive additional points for arranged employment or adaptability because they do not hold work permits.
[18] On the first issue of adaptability, subsection 83(4) of the Regulations clearly states that 5 points will be awarded in cases where the applicant or accompanying spouse / common-law partner engaged in at least one year of full-time work in Canada “under a work permit”. On the second issue of arranged employment, section 82 of the Regulations sets out a number of scenarios for what may be considered ‘arranged employment’, each requiring that the applicant either hold a valid work permit or, in the situation where the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada prior to obtaining his permanent resident visa, an offer of employment in Canada that has been validated by HRSDC.
[19] The applicant is correct in noting that he was exempt from the requirement to obtain a work permit before coming to Canada to work as a Sikh priest as per subsection 186(l) of the Regulations. That being said, no further accommodations are made in the Regulations that would grant special privileges for workers that meet the requirements of section 186, when applying for a permanent resident visa. Given the various scenarios considered under section 82 of the Regulations to be awarded points for arranged employment, had such an exemption been contemplated by the Canadian Government, it could easily have been included in the Regulations. The applicant argues that no such accommodations were made because the occupations listed under section 186 have already been determined to have a “neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada”, as required to issue a work permit under section 203 of the Regulations, and thus an exemption is implied from a joint reading of sections 186, 203 and 82 of the Regulations. With no evidence submitted to support such an interpretation of the Regulations, I find no merit to this argument.
[20] Furthermore, a cursory look through the occupations listed in section 186 is sufficient to determine that the exemption from the requirement to hold a work permit is meant to accommodate those whose stay in Canada is temporary and dictated by the nature of their work, and does not reflect a desire to establish themselves in Canada. The categories listed in section 186 include business visitors, foreign representatives, students, performing artists, foreign correspondents and athletes taking part in competition held in Canada.
[21] As it is clear on the face of the record that the applicant possessed neither a work permit nor an offer of employment validated by HRSDC, the decision of the visa officer not to grant the applicant any points for adaptability or arranged employment, and ultimately to refuse the applicant a permanent resident visa, was reasonable, pursuant to the existing Regulations.
[22] That being said, it would appear that, at the time the applicant submitted his application for permanent residence, there was confusion at Citizenship and Immigration Canada concerning the proper awarding of points for arranged employment for priests whose job offers were not validated by HRSDC, as evidenced by the contradiction between the affidavit of the visa officer and the email reply submitted by the applicant, in which the Ministerial Enquiries Division stated that, if you are a priest applying under the skilled worker class:
You do not need to have your job offer validated by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada (HRSDC). However, you should ensure that you obtain a proper job offer from your employer. Instructions for preparing a proper job offer may be found on the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Web site [...] Despite the fact that HRSDC validation is not necessary, your employer may wish to have your job offer validated as an assurance that it is a genuine job offer.
If you include a properly prepared job offer with your application, you will received [sic] the points for arrange employment. [emphasis added]
[23] This contradiction is sufficient to raise serious concerns that all individuals applying for permanent residence in Canada under circumstances similar to that of the applicant may not be treated alike, a situation contrary to the rules of procedural fairness.
[24] On this basis alone, the judicial review will be granted and the decision will be sent back to another visa officer for re-determination. While I do believe that the interpretation of the Regulations by the visa officer was the correct one, the appearance of unequal treatment that arising from the existence of this email is sufficient to justify that this decision be set aside, in order to protect the applicant’s right to procedural fairness.
[25] Furthermore, I would like to add that I strongly encourage the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada to clarify the guidelines concerning the allocation of points in permanent residence applications, for both arranged employment and adaptability, for individuals who are permitted to work in Canada without a work permit under section 186 and who later seek to become permanent residents under the skilled worker class. As demonstrated by this case, it is important that all visa officers and all other employees of Citizenship and Immigration Canada be given the same instructions concerning the interpretation of the Act, so that all applicants under the Act may be treated fairly. This is not the first time that the Court has had to deal with this particular issue, which makes the need for clarification from the Minister all the more relevant.
[26] For the above reasons, this judicial review is granted and the application will be sent back to a different visa officer for re-determination, in light of the reasons provided by this Court.
JUDGMENT
1. The application is allowed;
2. The decision of the visa officer is set aside and the matter is referred back for re-determination;
3. Neither counsel suggested questions for certification.
“Pierre Blais”
Judge
ANNEX
PERTINENT LEGISLATION
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
|
12. (2) A foreign national may be selected as a member of the economic class on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada. |
12. (2) La sélection des étrangers de la catégorie « immigration économique » se fait en fonction de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada. |
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, S.O.R./2002-227
|
75. (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the federal skilled worker class is hereby prescribed as a class of persons who are skilled workers and who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada and who intend to reside in a province other than the Province of Quebec.
(2) A foreign national is a skilled worker if
(a) within the 10 years preceding the date of their application for a permanent resident visa, they have at least one year of continuous full-time employment experience, as described in subsection 80(7), or the equivalent in continuous part-time employment in one or more occupations, other than a restricted occupation, that are listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix;
(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; and
(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.
(3) If the foreign national fails to meet the requirements of subsection (2), the application for a permanent resident visa shall be refused and no further assessment is required.
76. (1) For the purpose of determining whether a skilled worker, as a member of the federal skilled worker class, will be able to become economically established in Canada, they must be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:
(a) the skilled worker must be awarded not less than the minimum number of required points referred to in subsection (2) on the basis of the following factors, namely, (i) education, in accordance with section 78, (ii) proficiency in the official languages of Canada, in accordance with section 79, (iii) experience, in accordance with section 80, (iv) age, in accordance with section 81, (v) arranged employment, in accordance with section 82, and (vi) adaptability, in accordance with section 83; and
(b) the skilled worker must (i) have in the form of transferable and available funds, unencumbered by debts or other obligations, an amount equal to half the minimum necessary income applicable in respect of the group of persons consisting of the skilled worker and their family members, or (ii) be awarded the number of points referred to in subsection 82(2) for arranged employment in Canada within the meaning of subsection 82(1). 82. (1) In this section, “arranged employment” means an offer of indeterminate employment in Canada.
(2) Ten points shall be awarded to a skilled worker for arranged employment in Canada in an occupation that is listed in Skill Type 0 Management Occupations or Skill Level A or B of the National Occupational Classification matrix if they are able to perform and are likely to accept and carry out the employment and
(a) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit and (i) there has been a determination by an officer under section 203 that the performance of the employment by the skilled worker would be likely to result in a neutral or positive effect on the labour market in Canada, (ii) the skilled worker is currently working in that employment, (iii) the work permit is valid at the time an application is made by the skilled worker for a permanent resident visa as well as at the time the permanent resident visa, if any, is issued to the skilled worker, and (iv) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the skilled worker;
(b) the skilled worker is in Canada and holds a work permit referred to in paragraph 204(a) or 205(a) or subparagraph 205(c)(ii) and the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (a)(ii) to (iv) apply;
(c) the skilled worker does not intend to work in Canada before being issued a permanent resident visa and does not hold a work permit and (i) the employer has made an offer to employ the skilled worker on an indeterminate basis once the permanent resident visa is issued to the skilled worker, and (ii) an officer has approved that offer of employment based on an opinion provided to the officer by the Department of Human Resources Development at the request of the employer or an officer that (A) the offer of employment is genuine, (B) the employment is not part-time or seasonal employment, and (C) the wages offered to the skilled worker are consistent with the prevailing wage rate for the occupation and the working conditions meet generally accepted Canadian standards; or
(d) the skilled worker holds a work permit and (i) the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (a)(i) to (iv) and paragraph (b) do not apply, and (ii) the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (c)(i) and (ii) apply.
83. (1) A maximum of 10 points for adaptability shall be awarded to a skilled worker on the basis of any combination of the following elements:
(c) for any previous period of work in Canada by the skilled worker or the skilled worker's spouse or common-law partner, 5 points;
[...]
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), a skilled worker shall be awarded 5 points if they or their accompanying spouse or accompanying common-law partner engaged in at least one year of full-time work in Canada under a work permit.
186. A foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit
[...]
(l) as a person who is responsible for assisting a congregation or group in the achievement of its spiritual goals and whose main duties are to preach doctrine, perform functions related to gatherings of the congregation or group or provide spiritual counselling; |
75. (1) Pour l’application du paragraphe 12(2) de la Loi, la catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral) est une catégorie réglementaire de personnes qui peuvent devenir résidents permanents du fait de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada, qui sont des travailleurs qualifiés et qui cherchent à s’établir dans une province autre que le Québec.
(2) Est un travailleur qualifié l’étranger qui satisfait aux exigences suivantes :
a) il a accumulé au moins une année continue d’expérience de travail à temps plein au sens du paragraphe 80(7), ou l’équivalent s’il travaille à temps partiel de façon continue, au cours des dix années qui ont précédé la date de présentation de la demande de visa de résident permanent, dans au moins une des professions appartenant aux genre de compétence 0 Gestion ou niveaux de compétences A ou B de la matrice de la Classification nationale des professions — exception faite des professions d’accès limité;
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 cette classification;
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 cette classification, notamment toutes les fonctions essentielles.
(3) Si l’étranger ne satisfait pas aux exigences prévues au paragraphe (2), l’agent met fin à l’examen de la demande de visa de résident permanent et la refuse.
76. (1) Les critères ci-après indiquent que le travailleur qualifié peut réussir son établissement économique au Canada à titre de membre de la catégorie des travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral) :
a) le travailleur qualifié accumule le nombre minimum de points visé au paragraphe (2), au titre des facteurs suivants : (i) les études, aux termes de l’article 78, (ii) la compétence dans les langues officielles du Canada, aux termes de l’article 79, (iii) l’expérience, aux termes de l’article 80, (iv) l’âge, aux termes de l’article 81, (v) l’exercice d’un emploi réservé, aux termes de l’article 82, (vi) la capacité d’adaptation, aux termes de l’article 83;
b) le travailleur qualifié : (i) soit dispose de fonds transférables — non grevés de dettes ou d’autres obligations financières — d’un montant égal à la moitié du revenu vital minimum qui lui permettrait de subvenir à ses propres besoins et à ceux des membres de sa famille, (ii) soit s’est vu attribuer le nombre de points prévu au paragraphe 82(2) pour un emploi réservé au Canada au sens du paragraphe 82(1).
82. (1) Pour l’application du présent article, constitue un emploi réservé toute offre d’emploi au Canada à durée indéterminée.
(2) Dix points sont attribués au travailleur qualifié pour un emploi réservé appartenant au genre de compétence 0 Gestion ou niveaux de compétences A ou B de la matrice de la Classification nationale des professions, s’il est en mesure d’exercer les fonctions de l’emploi et s’il est vraisemblable qu’il acceptera de les exercer, et que l’un des alinéas suivants s’applique :
a) le travailleur qualifié se trouve au Canada, il est titulaire d’un permis de travail et les conditions suivantes sont réunies : (i) l’agent a conclu, au titre de l’article 203, que l’exécution du travail par le travailleur qualifié est susceptible d’entraîner des effets positifs ou neutres sur le marché du travail canadien, (ii) le travailleur qualifié occupe actuellement cet emploi réservé, (iii) le permis de travail est valide au moment de la présentation de la demande de visa de résident permanent et au moment de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent, le cas échéant, (iv) l’employeur a présenté au travailleur qualifié une offre d’emploi d’une durée indéterminée sous réserve de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent;
b) le travailleur qualifié se trouve au Canada, il est titulaire du permis de travail visé aux alinéas 204a) ou 205a) ou au sous-alinéa 205c)(ii) et les conditions visées aux sous-alinéas a)(ii) à (iv) sont réunies;
c) le travailleur qualifié n’a pas l’intention de travailler au Canada avant qu’un visa de résident permanent ne lui soit octroyé, il n’est pas titulaire d’un permis de travail et les conditions suivantes sont réunies : (i) l’employeur a présenté au travailleur qualifié une offre d’emploi d’une durée indéterminée sous réserve de la délivrance du visa de résident permanent, (ii) un agent a approuvé cette offre sur le fondement d’un avis émis par le ministère du Développement des ressources humaines, à la demande de l’employeur, à sa demande ou à celle d’un autre agent, où il est affirmé que : (A) l’offre d’emploi est véritable, (B) l’emploi n’est pas saisonnier ou à temps partiel, (C) la rémunération offerte au travailleur qualifié est conforme au taux de rémunération en vigueur pour la profession et les conditions de l’emploi satisfont aux normes canadiennes généralement acceptées;
d) le travailleur qualifié est titulaire d’un permis de travail et, à la fois : (i) les conditions visées aux sous-alinéas a)(i) à (iv) et à l’alinéa b) ne sont pas remplies, (ii) les conditions visées aux sous-alinéas c)(i) et (ii) sont réunies. 83. (1) Un maximum de 10 points d’appréciation sont attribués au travailleur qualifié au titre de la capacité d’adaptation pour toute combinaison des éléments ci-après, selon le nombre indiqué :
c) pour du travail antérieur effectué par le travailleur qualifié ou son époux ou conjoint de fait au Canada, 5 points;
[...]
4) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (1)c), le travailleur qualifié obtient 5 points si lui ou, dans le cas où il l’accompagne, son époux ou conjoint de fait a travaillé à temps plein au Canada pendant au moins un an au titre d’un permis de travail.
186. L’étranger peut travailler au Canada sans permis de travail :
[...]
l) à titre de personne chargée d’aider une communauté ou un groupe à atteindre ses objectifs spirituels et dont les fonctions consistent principalement à prêcher une doctrine, à exercer des fonctions relatives aux rencontres de cette communauté ou de ce groupe ou à donner des conseils d’ordre spirituel;
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL and SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4082-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Amarjeet Singh v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: January 16, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Mr. Justice Blais
DATE OF REASONS: January 23, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Brian Doherty For applicant
Ms. Camille Audain For respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Doherty Schuldhaus For applicant
Edmonton, Alberta
John H. Sims, Q.C For respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada