APPLICANT'S CREDIBILITY REQUIRES OFFICER TO ISSUE "FAIRNESS" LETTER

A visa officer's discretion is limited by procedural fairness, which is triggered when credibility of the evidence is an issue:

Farooq v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Between Umar Farooq, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2013] F.C.J. No. 162

2013 FC 164

Docket IMM-3459-12

 Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario

Roy J.

Heard: January 30, 2013.
Judgment: February 15, 2013.

(24 paras.)

---

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

1     ROY J.:-- This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer of the Canadian High Commission in London, United Kingdom (the "officer") made pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the "Act"). In this case, the officer refused the application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker category made by Mr. Umar Farooq (the "applicant").

2     The facts in this case are straightforward. The applicant is a 30 year-old citizen of Pakistan who holds a Bachelor degree in Computer Science and a Masters of Business Administration. Both degrees were obtained in Pakistan. On July 15, 2010, the applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada as part of the skilled worker class. His application was denied on March 19, 2012. Leave for judicial review was granted by Justice Gleason on November 13, 2012.

3     The reasons for the refusal are briefly described in one paragraph in the officer's decision found in the letter sent to the applicant on January 30, 2012. The said paragraph reads as follows:

·       Although the NOC Code(s) correspond(s) to the occupations specified in the instructions, the main duties that you listed do not indicate that you performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set out in the occupational descriptions of the NOC, or that you performed all of the essential duties and a substantial number of the main duties, as set out in the occupational descriptions of the NOC. I am therefore not satisfied that you are a Computer and Information Systems Manager; NOC Code(s): 0213. 

4     The reasons for the refusal are somewhat better articulated in the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System ("CAIPS") notes, which are part of the record. One can read the following paragraph:

·       He claims he worked from January 2005 to August 2006 as software developer and from 2006 to present as manager (software development) for Tricastmedia PVT Ltd in Lahore Pakistan. Such rapid promotion is not credible as computer and information systems managers normally require several years of experience in systems analysis, data administration software engineering, network design or computer programming, including supervisory experience. Some of the duties in his employment letter repeat verbatim the duties of NOC 0213 which raises the question of the credibility of that employment letter. The other duties are similar to those of information systems analysts and consultants (NOC Code 2171). 

Applicant's position

5     The applicant's argument can be summarized, in my view, in the following fashion. A duty of fairness may require visa officers to give applicants an opportunity to address their concerns. Where an officer is concerned about the authenticity or credibility of documents, applicants should be given an opportunity to respond. Here, the officer expresses obvious concerns about the credibility of the documentation. Given that the applicant had made a prima facie case that he satisfied the conditions for the issuance of the visa, would constitute a breach of natural justice the fact that the officer did not raise his concerns and thus allow the applicant to address them.

6     The applicant relies heavily on Patel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 571, a case he considers to be on all fours with the present application. In that case, Justice John O'Keefe found that an interview should have taken place in a situation in which the officer was concerned with the credibility of an employment letter because the duties listed in it had been copied directly from the NOC description. The applicant relies also on the cases of Rukmangathan v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 284, 247 F.T.R. 147, Kumar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1072, 92 Imm.L.R. (3d) 202, and most recently Talpur v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 25.

7     The applicant also contends that the assessment made by the officer is flawed to the point of being unreasonable. The mere fact that language used in reference letters corresponds precisely with the job requirement in a NOC is not, per se, sufficient to dismiss those reference letters. Actually, the argument goes, there was enough evidence to require the officer to conclude that the substantial number of the main duties of the NOC had been met. The officer did not conduct this assessment or he did not explain himself adequately.

Respondent's position

8     The respondent argues that the issue here is not so much the credibility of the employment letter as it is, rather, the sufficiency of the evidence. Quoting verbatim NOC criteria in reference letters amounts to insufficient evidence. The respondent refers to Kamchibekov v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1411 where, at paragraph 15, Justice Yvon Pinard expressed the view that "where a document lacks sufficient detail to permit its verification and ensure a credible description, the applicant will not have adduced sufficient evidence to establish eligibility".

9     In the view of the respondent, a close reading of the officer's findings indicates that the issue was not the credibility of the employment letter per se. Rather, the officer was concerned that several duties were copied from the NOC description and that the remaining duties were more closely related to the description of an information systems analyst or consultant rather than a manager.

Analysis

10     The duty of procedural fairness owed to skilled worker applicants is admittedly low. That, of course, confirms that a duty of fairness still exists (see Malik v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1283).

11     It seems to me that, in this case, the whole matter revolves around the notions of sufficiency and credibility of the evidence. If the matter is to be characterized as being one where the officer was not satisfied that the evidence was insufficient, the applicant should fail on his argument that procedural fairness was denied unduly. On the other hand, there is case law from this Court that finds that if credibility of the evidence is the issue, procedural fairness would require that an opportunity be given to the applicant to address the credibility concerns.

12     As indicated previously, in what amounts to a set of short reasons for denying the visa, the officer refers three times to the credibility of some of the documentation offered by the applicant in support. The officer said the following in the CAIPS notes:

·       He claims he worked from January 2005 to August 2006 as software developer and from 2006 to present as manager (software development) for Tricastmedia PVT Ltd in Lahore Pakistan. Such rapid promotion is not credible as computer and information systems managers normally require several years of experience in systems analysis, data administration software engineering, network design or computer programming, including supervisory experience. Some of the duties in his employment letter repeat verbatim the duties of NOC 0213 which raises the question of the credibility of that employment letter. The other duties are similar to those of information systems analysts and consultants (NOC Code 2171). 

Later, he said: "The information and documents provided by the applicant are not credible." I reckon that the sentence just quoted is preceded by this:

·       Although the NOC Code 0213 corresponds to an occupation specified in the instructions, the information submitted to support this application is insufficient to substantiate that applicant meets the occupational description and/or a substantial number of the main duties of NOC 0213. 

However, this suggests to me that, to the officer, the insufficiency of the evidence was closely limited to the lack of credibility. At the heart of the officer's concern was his belief that, in spite of the written evidence, the applicant's submission lacked credibility. The applicant could not have been promoted that quickly. The fact that the NOC definition was reproduced in part in the employment letter affected the credibility of the whole letter. The information and the documents provided are not credible. The officer did not believe the applicant on the whole and he never gave him an opportunity to explain further in spite of the fact that he had met, prima facie, the requirements of the Act and Regulations.

13     Justice O'Keefe was confronted to the same kind of situation in the case of Patel, supra. Paragraphs 24 to 27 seem to me to apply squarely to the situation at hand. They read:

·       [24] Regulation 75 clearly indicates that a foreign national is only a skilled worker if he can show one year of full time employment where he performed the actions in the lead statement of the NOC and a substantial number of the main duties. 

·       [25] As such, if the visa officer was concerned only that the employment letter was insufficient proof that the principal applicant met the requirements of Regulation 75, then she would not have been required to conduct an interview. 

·       [26] However, the officer states that her concern is that the duties in the employment letter have been copied directly from the NOC description and that the duties in the experience letter are identical to the letter of employment. I agree with the principal applicant that the officer's reasons are inadequate to explain why this was problematic. I find that the implication from these concerns is that the officer considered the experience letter to be fraudulent. 

·       [27] Consequently, by viewing the letter as fraudulent, the officer ought to have convoked an interview of the principal applicant based on the jurisprudence above. As such, the officer denied the principal applicant procedural fairness and the judicial review must be allowed. 

14     The narrow issue that needs to be decided here is whether or not this is a case regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, in the sense that, in the words of Justice Richard Mosley in Hassani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1283, [2007] 3 FCR 501:

·       [23] ... there is no obligation on the part of the visa officer to apprise an applicant of her concerns that arise directly from the requirements of the former Act or Regulations ... 

15     It is also certainly true that a visa officer does not have an obligation to provide a "running score" of the weaknesses in an application. However, where the issue is credibility, "the duty of fairness may require immigration officials to inform applicants of their concerns with applications so that an applicant may have a chance to "disabuse" an officer of such concerns, even where such concerns arise from evidence tendered by the applicant" (Rukmangathan, above, at paragraph 22). Justice de Montigny, in Talpur, supra, finding support in Hassani, summarized clearly what I believe is the state of the law:

·       [21] It is by now well established that the duty of fairness, even if it is at the low end of the spectrum in the context of visa applications ... require visa officers to inform applicants of their concerns so that an applicant may have an opportunity to disabuse an officer of such concerns. This will be the case, in particular, where such concern arises not so much from the legal requirements but from the authenticity or credibility of the evidence provided by the applicant. 

16     Here, the visa officer indicates clearly that the credibility of the applicant, or lack thereof, is the fundamental concern he has. Contrary to other cases where an opportunity is given to the applicant to address the concerns, there is nothing of the sort in this case. It would seem to me that both Patel and Rukmangathan are dispositive of the issue and that the matter should be remitted to a different visa officer for the purpose of a re-determination of the matter.

17     Whether or not procedural fairness has been followed is a question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness (Khosa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 SCR 339; Gulati v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 451). Procedural fairness was calling, in the circumstances of this case, for the visa officer to seek clarification for the credibility deficiencies he found.

18     Those considerations dispose of this judicial review. I would add that a standard of reasonableness would have been applied to the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the application for a visa.

19     Even with a high level of deference, it is not overly clear why the visa was denied, in view of the jurisprudence of this Court that not all of the NOC elements need to be met. The words in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 SCR 190 at paragraph 47, are apposite and provide clear guidance:

·       In judicial review, reasonableness is concerned mostly with the evidence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law. 

20     I would think that an articulation of the reasons, for or against an application, would be required to meet the reasonableness standard. Only then can a reviewing court be satisfied that the decision falls within a range of possible outcomes.

21     I find support for this proposition in the analysis and conclusion in Gulati, above (see paragraphs 38 to 42).

22     The parties agreed at the hearing that if the applicant is successful on either one of his arguments, he should prevail and the application should be granted. It suffices that the rules of procedural fairness have not been applied properly in this case to dispose of the matter.

23     Accordingly, the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different officer for re-determination.

24     The parties did not submit that a question ought to be certified pursuant to paragraph 74(d) of the Act, and none arises.

JUDGMENT

The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of a visa officer rendered on March 19, 2012 refusing the application for permanent residence under the Federal Skilled Worker category made by the applicant is quashed and the matter is remitted to a different visa officer for re-determination.

ROY J.

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE RESULTS IN REFUSAL FOR SKILLED WORKER

The case below illustrates a common error made by applicants: they do not address specifically the concerns raised by officers in "form letters, and instead provide volumes of copious material which is of doubtful probative value, and in some cases, even self-serving and apparently "copied" from other documents.  Applicants must realize that visa officers are accorded considerable deference in judicial review, and therefore should consult counsel before making any submissions.


Luongo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)


Between

Maria Veronica Tineo Luongo, Applicant, and

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent

[2011] F.C.J. No. 770

2011 FC 618
Docket IMM-5564-10
Federal Court

Toronto, Ontario
Gauthier J.
Heard: May 18, 2011.

Judgment: May 25, 2011.

(20 paras.)
________________________________________

• REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

1 GAUTHIER J.:-- The applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of a Citizenship and Immigration visa officer denying her application for a permanent resident visa as a Skilled Worker.

Background

2 Ms. Maria Veronica Tineo Luongo is a 36 year old citizen of Venezuela. She applied (with her husband, Armanda Jose Acosta Batisdas) for a permanent resident visa on May 22, 2007 under the 0114 (Other Administrative Service Managers) and 1211 (Supervisors, General Office and Administrative Support Clerks) categories of the National Occupation Classification (NOC).

3 On October 31, 2008, she received a letter stating that the respondent was ready to process her application and requesting that she forward updated immigration forms. She provided documentary evidence to support her application on February 26, 2009.

4 In March 2010, her application had yet to be processed and she received another letter stating that due to the long processing time, she had a choice to withdraw her application and receive a full refund or to provide once again her evidence within 120 days. On July 15, 2010, the applicant submitted again a copy of the documentary evidence originally filed in support of her application. As it appears from the Certified Record, she followed the instructions received - i.e. to put the standard form letter she had received, and on which her file number is written, on top of her supporting documentation. The said form letter contained detailed information as to where the applicant could find the forms she was required to complete (available on the Citizenship and Immigration website). She was directed to consult the website for Visa Office Specific Instructions which applied to her application. More importantly here, in respect of her work experience documents, she was notified of the following:

• 4. Work experience documents
• Provide employment letters, contracts, pay-slips and job descriptions endorsed by your employer's personnel department covering the period from 10 years prior to your application date until today. Please make sure that the employment letters have details of your duties and clearly show the start and end dates (if relevant) of your employment. CPP-O is under no obligation to further request detailed employment letters, and your work experience review will be based solely on the documents initially provided.

[emphasis added]
5 Among the voluminous documentation provided, Ms. Tineo Luongo included, without providing any explanation as to why her employment letters did not meet the requirements set out in the instructions above, four letters from her past employers that gave no details except the date she was employed, her position title and salary. Instead, she provided the details of the duties performed for each employer in her c.v. (or resumé).

6 On July 30, 2010, she was advised that her application was rejected because the officer was not satisfied that she met the requirements of subsections 75(2)(a), (b) and (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the Regulations) including, in particular, that she had one year of experience in a position in the Skill level and type of O, A or B described in the NOC matrix. In his recorded notes of July 30, 2010, the decision-maker mentions:
• ...PA provides: own CV, 4 letters of employ - none stating more than title, dates of employ, and salary, and translated portions of own CV. Only description of job duties and responsibilities comes from client herself, nothing from places of employ. States is working as an Administrative Services Manager (0114) and previously as Supervisor, General office and Admin support (NOC 1211), however has not provided documentation, other than own CV to show has performed the actions of the lead statement or the main duties as described in the NOC descriptions for those two codes. PA was informed in request for documentation that employment letters/documents needed to include details, including job duties and responsibilities. As have no details of duties or responsibilities of PA's employment in the NOC codes declared on the application, I am not satisfied that she has worked for a minimum of 1 yr in a position at skill level O, A, or B of the NOC.

[emphasis added]
7 The relevant provisions of the Regulations and of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 are reproduced in Annex A.

Analysis

8 The applicant submits that it is apparent from the notes reproduced above that the decision-maker based his decision on the fact that her own description of her duties was not credible. The case law indicates that when credibility concerns are at issue or where the authenticity of a document is in play,1 the officer has a duty to give the applicant an opportunity to address his concerns either in writing or through an interview (Liao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1926 (TD); Muliadi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 2 F.C. 205 (CA); Fong v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] 3 F.C. 705; Cornea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FC 972; Rukmangathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 284, among others).

9 She also argues in the alternative that the decision-maker ignored the evidence he effectively had before him in respect of the duties she performed - the translated portion of her c.v. which described in detail the various tasks involved in the positions for which she had produced original letters from her past employers. This evidence was relevant, in her opinion, and failure to consider it vitiates the decision which can only be characterized as unreasonable. In that respect, she relies on Gulati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 451 where the general principle set out in Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425, 157 FTR 35 was applied in a context almost identical to the present one.

10 There is no dispute that in respect of questions of procedural fairness, the Court will intervene if, applying the correctness standard, there is a breach (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, at para 43; Gulati, above, at para 20). With respect to the officer's assessment of the evidence, or lack thereof, this is a question that is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness (Malik v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 3 at para 22; Gulati, above, at para 18).

11 Despite the able submissions of her counsel, the Court simply cannot agree with the applicant's characterization of what occurred in this file. This has a direct impact on the extent of the duty of the decision-maker to give the applicant an opportunity to make further submissions or provide additional evidence.

12 In my view, the notes referred to above clearly indicate that the officer reviewed both the c.v. and the employers' letters before declaring that he was not satisfied that, in the circumstances, he should pursue the assessment in respect of the NOC description on the basis of her own descriptions given in her c.v., taking into consideration the fact that the applicant had been advised by letter of what was required.

13 This is a case where the decision-maker felt that the low probative value of the evidence provided was simply insufficient to warrant a further analysis. This is not a case where the officer simply ignored the evidence, as illustrated in Gulati, above. In that case, Justice Richard Mosley had to determine whether the visa officer in similar circumstances had failed to consider relevant evidence, particularly an "Arranged Employment Offer" (AEO) signed by the prospective employer, and a resumé. The officer had admitted in her affidavit that she had not considered the AEO to assess the applicant's past work experience as this would normally not be relevant to this particular issue. She had not realized that this offer was for the exact same job the applicant had held during the three years preceding his application for residency. The AEO thus described a substantial number of duties which the applicant had performed. It was objective evidence that was clearly relevant. This constituted a reviewable error.

14 That said, the officer did not say in her affidavit whether she had looked at the resumé or not. Applying the general principle that the decision-maker is presumed to have considered the evidence before him or her, which had clearly not been rebutted in respect of this document, the Court assumed that the officer did look at the resumé.

15 The learned judge went on to conclude that the officer "appropriately" found that the resumé was not satisfactory proof of the duties performed. There was no reviewable error in that respect.

16 When documentation submitted by an applicant is considered insufficient, does it necessarily mean that, as argued by the applicant, her or his credibility is at issue? Justice Russel Zinn's comments in Ferguson v. MCI, 2008 FC 1067 deal with this question albeit in a slightly different context where the decision maker was looking at a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application. The same principles apply to the weighing of evidence in the present context. Among other things, the learned judge notes that a trier of fact may give little probative value to documentary evidence which is found to be unreliable because its author is not credible or simply because it falls into a category such as self-serving reports, to which lesser weight is given in the absence of corroborative evidence. In that respect, he says at paragraph 27:


• Evidence tendered by a witness with a personal interest in the matter may also be examined for its weight before considering its credibility because typically this sort of evidence requires corroboration if it is to have probative value. If there is no corroboration then it may be unnecessary to assess its credibility as its weight will not meet the legal burden of proving the fact on the balance of probabilities. When the trier of fact assesses the evidence in this manner he or she is not making a determination based on the credibility of the person providing the evidence; rather, the trier of fact is simply saying the evidence that has been tendered does not have sufficient probative value, either on its own or coupled with the other tendered evidence, to establish on the balance of probability, the fact for which it has been tendered. That, in my view, is the assessment the officer made in this case.

17 In my view, this is exactly what happened here. Ms. Tineo Luongo should not be surprised by this given that she was expressly warned that immigration officials were under no obligation to further request documentation such that she would not be given an opportunity to cure her failure to provide objective evidence in the respect of the employment duties she performed in the past.

18 When an applicant produces insufficient evidence to meet the requirements set out in the Regulations, there is no further duty on the officer to communicate with the applicant. In that respect, it is sufficient to refer to the decision of Justice Robert Mainville (then with this Court) in Malik, above. In that case, an applicant for a permanent resident's visa as a skilled worker had submitted his own affidavit to establish that he had a brother residing in Canada, despite the fact that he had been warned in a form letter, similar to the one in the present case, that this type of evidence would not be satisfactory evidence and that the officer would not request further documentation to support his application. Justice Mainville first noted that although this approach appears to be, at first glance, harsh on visa applicants, "it is necessary to ensure the administrative efficiency of a burdened system and to ensure finality of the decision-making process related to visa applications." He further said at paragraph 19:
• Fairness to all visa applicants requires that all applicants conform to the instructions they receive as to the type and quality of documentation required in support of their applications, thus ensuring a minimum of efficiency and equity in the system.

Then, at paragraph 26 he noted that "no undertakings are made to applicants as to an interview or as to additional notification if documentation is missing or insufficient, thus considerably limiting expectations of applicants in such matters."

19 As in Malik, above, I find that the duty of fairness owed to the applicant in this case was low and, in any event, was met through the prior notice provided to her specifying clearly the process that would be followed and the documentation required in order to support the application (see Malik, above, at para 29). In this case, the applicant did not raise the fact that through the issuance of instructions the visa officer had fettered his discretion. She was wise not to do so given that this argument was rejected in Malik, above, and that it is clearly evident from the information on the website, to which the applicant was directed, that if it was impossible for her to obtain the kind of detailed letters required from her employers, she should give an explanation in that respect and attempt to file different objective evidence, such as copies of past work assessments, etc.

20 In light of the foregoing, the applicant has not established a breach of procedural fairness, nor has she established that the decision did not fall within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are supported on the law and the facts of this case. The application is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

GAUTHIER J.

* * * * *

ANNEX A

* Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227

• Federal Skilled Worker Class
• 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.

Skilled workers

• (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.

• Minimal requirements


• (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.

* * *

• Travailleurs qualifiés (fédéral) Catégorie

• 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 a réussir leur établissement économique au Canada, qui sont des travailleurs qualifiés et qui cherchent a s'établir dans une province autre que le Québec.

• Qualité

• (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 a temps plein au sens du paragraphe 80(7), ou l'équivalent s'il travaille a 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.
• Exigences
• (3) Si l'étranger ne satisfait pas aux exigences prévues au paragraphe (2), l'agent met fin a l'examen de la demande de visa de résident permanent et la refuse.

* Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27
• Application before entering Canada


• 11. (1) A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.

* * *

• Visa et documents


• 11. (1) L'étranger doit, préalablement a son entrée au Canada, demander a l'agent les visa et autres documents requis par règlement. L'agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, a la suite d'un contrôle, que l'étranger n'est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme a la présente loi.