Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
Between
Martin Tan Lee, Appellant, and
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2012] F.C.J. No. 238
2012 FCA 54
Docket A-213-11
Federal Court of Appeal
Toronto, Ontario
Layden-Stevenson, Gauthier and Stratas JJ.A.
Heard: February 15, 2012.
Oral judgment: February 15, 2012.
Docket A-213-11
Federal Court of Appeal
Toronto, Ontario
Layden-Stevenson, Gauthier and Stratas JJ.A.
Heard: February 15, 2012.
Oral judgment: February 15, 2012.
(9 paras.)
Appeal from an Order of the Honourable Madam
Justice Snider dated May 26, 2011, Docket No. IMM-6513-10, [2011] F.C.J. No.
790.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by
1 STRATAS J.A. (orally):-- Mr. Lee appeals from
a judgment of the Federal Court (per Justice Snider): 2011 FC 617.
2 Mr.
Lee had applied for a permanent resident visa under the "federal skilled
worker class" described in the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. A
designated immigration officer rejected Mr. Lee's application on the basis that
he failed to earn the minimum number of points needed to qualify for the visa.
3 The
Federal Court dismissed Mr. Lee's application for judicial review, finding that
the immigration officer committed no reviewable error. In doing so, it
certified the following as a question of general importance:
· In assessing points for education under section 78 of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, does the visa officer award
points for years of full-time or full-time equivalent studies that did not
contribute to obtaining the educational credential being assessed?
4 Recently,
in another appeal, this Court considered this very question and answered it in
the negative: Khan v. Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2011 FCA 339. The appellant has not
convinced us that Khan is
manifestly wrong. Accordingly, we must answer the certified question in this
case in the negative.
5 In
addition to the issue raised by the certified question, Mr. Lee raises other
issues in this Court. These broadly relate to the substantive merits of the
designated immigration officer's decision and his failure to provide reasons.
6 Mr.
Lee raised these same issues in the Federal Court, submitting that the
designated immigration officer's decision should be set aside. As mentioned
above, the Federal Court found no reviewable error.
7 For
substantially the same reasons as the Federal Court, we agree that there is no
reviewable error.
8 Finally,
in this Court, the appellant submits that the decision was "lawfully
invalid" because outdated forms were used. The CAIPS notes show that there
was updating of the appellant's file. In our view, the appellant's submission
in this respect elevates form over substance.
9 Therefore,
notwithstanding counsel's spirited submissions, we shall answer the certified
question in the negative and dismiss the appeal.
STRATAS J.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment