Khowaja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
Between
Iqbal Khowaja, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Respondent
Iqbal Khowaja, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Respondent
[2013] F.C.J. No. 904
2013 FC 823
Docket IMM-5205-12
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Strickland J.
Heard: March 21, 2013.
Judgment: July 26, 2013.
Docket IMM-5205-12
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Strickland J.
Heard: March 21, 2013.
Judgment: July 26, 2013.
(41 paras.)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
1 STRICKLAND J.:-- This is an application
brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (the IRPA)
seeking judicial review of the decision of a visa officer (Officer) of the High
Commission of Canada in London, United Kingdom, refusing the Applicant's
application for permanent residence in Canada as a member of the federal
skilled worker class.
2 The
Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He applied for permanent residence in
Canada under National Occupation Code (NOC) 0213, computer and information
systems managers. By letter dated April 25, 2012, the Officer informed the
Applicant that he had not indicated that he had performed all the essential
duties and a substantial number of the main duties set out in NOC 0213.
Therefore, his application was ineligible for processing. This is the judicial
review of that decision.
Decision Under Review
3 The
decision in this case consists of the above described refusal letter and the
reasons for the decision contained in the Global Case Management System Notes
(GCMS Notes) made by the Officer. It is well established that GCMS Notes form
part of the reasons of a visa officer (Ghirmatsion v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2011
FC 519, [2011] F.C.J. No. 650 (QL) [Ghirmatsion] at para 8; Taleb v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 384, [2012]
F.C.J. No. 650 (QL) [Taleb] at
para 25; Rezaeiazar v Canada (Citizenship and
Immigration), 2013 FC 761, [2013] F.C.J. No. 804 (QL) [Rezaeiazar] at paras 58-59; Anabtawi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 856, [2012] F.C.J. No. 923 (QL) [Anabtawi] at para 10).
4 The
refusal letter is in standard form. The relevant portion reads as follows:
· Although the NOC code corresponds to the occupations specified in
the instructions, the main duties that you listed do not indicate 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 0213 - Computer and Information Systems
manager.
· Since you did not provide satisfactory evidence that you have work
experience in any of the listed occupations, you do not meet the requirements
of the Ministerial Instruction and your application is not eligible for
processing.
5 The
GCMS Notes state, in part:
· The information submitted to support this application is
insufficient to substantiate that client meets the occupational description
and/or a substantial number of the main duties of NOC 0213. Client submitted a
work reference letter from TRG in Pakistan. The letter describes client as a
Project Manager, Data Entry and Data Processing Dept. No explanation is
provided as far as the essence of the projects in which client was involved is
concerned. No budgetary responsibilities or recruitment of its analysts,
engineers, programmers is mentioned, only hiring of supervisors and data entry
processing teams, who appear to be employees who are simply recording data in
data bases. The job description provided appears to more closely resemble the
one of a Data Entry Supervisor as per NOC 1211. In view of all of the concerns
mentioned above, I am not satisfied that client completed a period of one year
of experience in NOC 0213. Am not satisfied on basis of the information on file
that client performed the duties specified in NOC 0213.
Issues
6 Although
the Applicant identified four issues in his submissions, in my view these are
captured as follows:
Did the Officer err in
assessing the Applicant's work experience?
Did the Officer deny
the Applicant procedural fairness?
Standard of Review
7 A
standard of review analysis need not be conducted in every instance if prior
jurisprudence satisfactorily establishes which standard is to apply (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008]
1 SCR 190 [Dunsmuir]). Prior
case law has held that the standard of review that applies to an officer's
assessment of the evidence submitted to support an application for permanent
residence under the federal skilled worker class will be reviewed on the
reasonableness standard. This standard also applies to the application of the
NOC document to the evidence (Bazaid v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2013 FC 17, [2013] F.C.J. No. 39 (QL) at
para 36; Gulati v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),2010 FC 451, [2010] F.C.J. No. 771 (QL) at
paras 17-18; Taleb v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2012 FC 384, [2012] F.C.J. No. 400 (QL)
at paras 19-20; Kamchibekov v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1411, [2011]
F.C.J. No. 1782 (QL) [Kamchibekov] at para 12).
8 In
Anabtawi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 856, [2012] F.C.J. No. 923 at para 29, Justice O'Keefe
found that, when considering whether an officer applied the correct legal test
for assessing an applicant's work experience, the applicable standard of review
was reasonableness, citing Smith v Alliance Pipeline Ltd, 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 SCR 160 at para 26 where the Supreme Court of
Canada held that the standard of review for questions pertaining to the
interpretation of a decision maker's enabling statute or statutes that are
closely connected to its function is reasonableness.
9 Adequacy
of reasons is no longer a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision, but is
subsumed into the analysis of the reasonableness of the decision as a whole. A
reviewing court should not substitute its own reasons but may, if necessary,
look to the record for the purpose of assessing the reasonableness of the
outcome. If the reasons allow the reviewing court to understand why the
tribunal made its decision and permit it to determine whether the conclusion is
within the range of acceptable outcomes then the Dunsmuir criteria have been met (Newfoundland and
Labrador Nurses' Union v Newfoundland & Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] SCR 708 [Newfoundland
and Labrador Nurses' Union] at para 14).
10 Accordingly,
the standard of review for the first issue is reasonableness.
11 Prior
case law has held that whether a visa officer should bring any concerns to the
attention of an applicant and offer an opportunity to address them is a
question of procedural fairness reviewable on a standard of correctness (Kamchibekov, above; Obeta
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2012 FC 1542, [2012] F.C.J. No. 1624 (QL) at para 14). When examining an issue
of procedural fairness the Court must determine whether the process followed by
the decision-maker satisfied the level of fairness required in all of the
circumstances (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v
Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 SCR 339 at para 43).
Therefore, the standard of review applicable to the second issue is
correctness.
Analysis
12 Sections
75 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the IRPA Regulations) address the skilled worker
class. Subsection 75(2) prescribes the three requirements that must be met by
an applicant to fall within that class. In essence, a skilled worker is a
foreign national who has a minimum of one year experience in a listed NOC code
within the ten year period preceding his or her application for permanent
residence (subsection 75(2)(a)). Further, during that period of employment, has
performed the actions described in the lead statement for the occupation as set
out in the NOC (subsection 75(2)(b)), and, has performed a substantial number
of the main duties of the occupation as set out in the NOC, including all of
the essential duties (subsection 75(2)(c)). The relevant legislative provisions
are contained in the Annex of this decision.
13 The
NOC 0213 lead description states that:
· Computer and information systems managers plan, organize, direct,
control and evaluate the activities of organizations that analyze, design,
develop, implement, operate and administer computer and telecommunications
software, networks and information systems. They are employed throughout the
public and private sectors.
14 The
main duties are described as:
· Computer and information systems managers perform some or all of the
following duties:
Plan, organize,
direct, control and evaluate the operations of information systems and
electronic data processing (EDP) departments and companies;
Develop and implement
policies and procedures for electronic data processing and computer systems
development and operation;
Meet with clients to
discuss system requirements, specifications, costs and timelines;
Assemble and manage
teams of information systems personnel to design, develop, implement, operate
and administer computer and telecommunications software, networks and
information systems;
Control the budget and
expenditures of the department, company or project;
Recruit and supervise
computer analysts, engineers, programmers, technicians and other personnel and
oversee their professional development and training.
15 Although
not clearly articulated, the Applicant appears to submit that the Officer
applied an incorrect test when applying the requirements of NOC 0213 to the
evidence provided by the Applicant. Specifically, that the refusal letter
states that the Applicant had not indicated that he had performed "all of
the essential duties and a substantial number of the main duties", yet
that could not be the correct test as the NOC 0213 does not include any
essential duties. It contains only a lead statement and the main duties of the
position.
16 The
refusal letter is to be considered in the context of the GCMS Notes which, as
indicated earlier, form a part of the Officer's reasons. The GCMS Notes state
that the information submitted by the Applicant was insufficient to
substantiate that he met the occupational description and/or a substantial
number of the main duties of NOC 0213. Further, that the letter provided by The
Resource Group (the TRG letter), the Applicants' employer, provided no
explanation "as far as the essence of the projects in which the client
[Applicant] was involved is concerned." The GCMS Notes conclude that, on
the basis of the information provided, the Officer was not satisfied that the
Applicant performed the duties specified in NOC 0213.
17 The
GCMS Notes establish that the Officer applied the correct NOC requirements,
being whether the Applicant fulfilled the occupational description (the lead
statement) and a substantial number of the listed main duties.
18 The
Applicant argues that the Officer erred by stating that he had failed to
provide information as to the "essence of" the projects he worked on
and therefore imported a new and inapplicable element to the federal skilled
worker criteria. As noted above, I do not agree. The Officer was simply
explaining that, by failing to describe the nature of the projects, the
Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to permit the Officer to
determine the "pith and substance" of the position that the Applicant
held and whether or not he met the lead description.
19 The
Applicant submits that the use of the word "substantial" in
subsection 75(2)(c), that is, in the performance of a substantial number of the
NOC main duties, leads to uncertainty as the NOC requires the performance of
"some or all" of the main duties. The result being that the Decision
is unreasonable. The Applicant relies on A'Bed v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002]
F.C.J. No. 1347 (QL) [A'Bed] in
support of that position.
20 I
agree that A'bed, above is
relevant in that it concluded that the words"some or all" take precedence
over and supersede the more general language concerning a "substantial
number" of the main duties, and, that "some" means more than
one. Subsequently it has been held that it is an error for a visa officer to
require an applicant to have performed a majority of the main duties when the
relevant NOC description merely demands experience in some or all of them (Dahyalal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),2007
FC 666, [2007] F.C.J. No. 898 (QL) [Dahyalal] at para 4). I do not agree that the wording of subsection 75(2)(c)
and the NOC is alone sufficient to render the Decision unreasonable. The
jurisprudence has satisfactorily interpreted the application of those
provisions.
21 The
issue is whether the Officer reasonably applied the NOC requirements to the
Applicant's evidence. As Justice Phelan states in Rodrigues
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2009 FC 111, [2009] F.C.J. No. 114 at para 10, "The real function of the
visa officer is to determine what is the pith and substance of the work
performed by an applicant." The onus is on the Applicant to ensure that
sufficient information is adduced (Ismaili v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2012 FC 351, [2012] F.C.J. No. 381 (QL) at para 18; Mihura Torres v Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 818, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1022
(QL) at para 37.
22 In
that regard, the Applicant has filed an affidavit dated July 18, 2012 in
support of this judicial review. Paragraph 13 of that Affidavit states
that,"I need to explain in some detail what is meant by the TRG reference
letter in respect to the duties to which they have referred." Paragraphs
14 to 24 and paragraph 39 then address this. These explanations are not
contained in the record that was before the Officer.
23 The
scope of the evidence admissible on an application for judicial review is
restricted to the material that was before the decision maker. Additional
evidence may only be submitted on issues of procedural fairness and jurisdiction
(Tabanag v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2011 FC 1293, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1575 (QL)
[Tabanag]) at para 14. At para
15 ofTabanag, Justice Mosley
states the following:
· [15] The impugned evidence is not admissible in this proceeding to
bolster the applicant's claim that he met the requirements of the NOC
classification when he submitted his skilled worker application. In particular,
the applicant may not rely on the assertions in the affidavits regarding his
employment duties or the practice of employers in Manila to be shy of
certifying such duties. The affidavit evidence is admissible solely for the
limited purpose of supporting his argument that the manner in which his application
was assessed was unfair.
24 In
this case the Applicant has referenced and relied heavily on his Affidavit to
support his written submissions. However, I agree with the Respondent that
paragraphs 13 to 24 and paragraph 39 are inadmissible as they do not speak to
an issue of procedural fairness, but are intended to bolster the Applicant's
claim of his compliance with the NOC. I also note that paragraphs 40 to 50 are
comprised primarily of argument.
25 The
Applicant also submits that the Officer did not assess, or reasonably assess,
the duties he performed as against the NOC.
26 The
TRG letter states that the Applicant was employed as a Project Manager in the
Data Entry and Data Processing Department, from September, 2006 until February,
2009. It describes his responsibilities as the following:
Project management of
data entry and data processing projects at various locations;
Plan, direct and
organize data entry and data processing projects;
Prepare policies and
procedures for data entry and data processing projects;
Oversee and evaluate
the data entry projects, assess the needs of clients and assure the fulfillment
of the requirements;
Monitor the
productivity of the team;
Meet with clients to
discuss their needs on data entry projects and monitor the progress of the
teams;
Work with information
technology teams to discuss the hardware requirements of data entry projects
and resolve issues;
Prepare invoices for
projects in collaboration with the finance department;
Oversee the training of
the team for data entry projects;
Recruit supervisors and
data entry and processing teams in collaboration with the recruitment
department;
Manage rotation of
shifts;
Verify the quality of
data provided by the teams.
27 The
GCMS Notes establish that the Officer referred to the TRG letter. The letter
was the only evidence offered to substantiate that the Applicant met the
occupational description, including the lead statement, contained in NOC 0213.
In the absence of any further information, including any that could be derived
from the main duties description, as to the actual nature of the position held
by the Applicant and, given the Applicant's title at TRG, it was not
unreasonable for the Officer to find that this did not substantiate that his
position was one of a computer and information systems manager as described in
the NOC 0213 lead statement which is a requirement of subsection 75(2)(b).
28 The
description of the Applicant's responsibilities contained in the TRC letter
place these, almost exclusively, in the context of data processing projects.
This does not assist the Applicant in establishing that his position is one of
a computer and information systems manager who plans, organizes, directs,
controls and evaluates the activities of organizations that analyze, design,
develop, implement, operate and administer computer and telecommunications
software, networks and information systems.
29 The
GCMS Notes also state that while the TRG letter describes the Applicant as a
project manager, data entry and data processing department, no explanation is
provided as to the essence of the projects in which he was involved. As noted
above, by failing to describe the nature of those projects, the Applicant
failed to provide sufficient information to the Officer to permit him to
determine whether the position held by the Applicant met the lead description.
30 The
Officer also noted that the TRG letter did not mention budgetary
responsibilities or recruitment of IT analysts, engineers, or programmers.
Instead, it referred only to the hiring of supervisors and data entry
processing teams who appear to be employees and who are simply recording data
in data bases. The Officer then stated that the job description provided
appears to more closely resemble that of a Data Entry Supervisor as per NOC
1211. In view of this, the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant had
performed the duties specified in NOC 0213.
31 Given
that the main responsibilities of the Applicant as set out in the TRG letter
are limited to their performance in relation to data processing projects,
absent an explanation of the nature of those projects, the Officer reasonably
found that the Applicant had not met the onus of establishing that he had
performed a substantial number of the required NOC 0213 main duties.
32 The
Applicant argues that he was denied procedural farness because the Officer did
not bring this concern to his attention. This issue was addressed by Justice
Mosley in Hassani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2006 FC 1283, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1597 (QL)
[Hassani] at para 24:
· [24] Having reviewed the factual context of the cases cited above,
it is clear that where a concern arises directly from the requirements of the
legislation or related regulations, a visa officer will not be under a duty to
provide an opportunity for the applicant to address his or her concerns. Where
however the issue is not one that arises in this context, such a duty may
arise. This is often the case where the credibility, accuracy or genuine nature
of information submitted by the applicant in support of their application is
the basis of the visa officer's concern, as was the case in Rukmangathan, and
in John and Cornea cited by the Court in Rukmangathan, above.
33 Here,
the Applicant's credibility was not at issue and the Officer's concerns arose
directly from the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPA Regulations.
Specifically, whether the information submitted by the Applicant was sufficient
to establish compliance with the legislative and regulatory requirements.
Accordingly, the Officer was not under a duty to raise his concerns with the
Applicant and the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness (Shah v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 697, [2011] F.C.J. No. 896 (QL) at paras 30-32; Gulati v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 451, [2010] F.C.J. No. 771 (QL) at para 43; Hosseini v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 766, [2013] F.C.J. No. 814 (QL) at para 38; Hassani, above).
34 The
Applicant also submits that the reasons provided by the Officer in the Decision
are inadequate.
35 The
reference to the performance of the essential duties contained in the refusal
letter was in error as NOC 0213 does not identify any essential duties. The
letter also makes no reference to the determination found in the GCMS Notes
that the submitted information was insufficient to establish that the Applicant
met the occupational description. It also appears to suggest his application
was directed occupations in addition to NOC 0213 when that was not the case.
36 It
must be recalled that visa officers review and respond to thousands of similar
applications. It is simply not feasible to expect detailed reasons to be issued
in response to each application that is declined for processing. And as
indicated earlier, officers utilize standard form letters with their reasons
often supplemented in the GMCS Notes (Rezaeiazar,
Ghirmatsion, Taleb, Anabtawi, all above).
37 Further,
considerable deference is given to the decision of a visa officer assessing an
application in the federal skilled worker class (Chen v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011
FC 1279, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1279 (QL) at para 7).
38 While
the reasons are brief and to some degree inaccurate it must also be recalled
that the decision under review in this case is an eligibility determination by
a visa officer which falls on the lower end of the procedural fairness scale.
As Justice Pinard states in Kamchibekov, above at para 23:
· [23] Moreover, it has been confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeal
in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Patel, 2002 FCA 55 at para 10, that the content of the duty of fairness
owed by a visa officer is at the lower end of the spectrum (see also Nodijeh at para 3; Dash
v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2010 FC
1255 at para 27 [Dash]; Fargoodarzi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2008 FC 90 at para 12 [Fargoodarzi]). Specifically, in the context of the decision of a visa officer
on an application for permanent residence, the duty of fairness is quite low
and easily met, "due to an absence of a legal right to permanent
residence, the fact that the burden is on the applicant to establish [his]
eligibility, the less serious the impact on the applicant that the decision
typically has, compared with the removal of a benefit and the public interest
in containing administrative costs" (Fargoodarzi at para 12). The applicant is not entitled to anything more than
the visa officer mentioning the evidence on which his decision was based (Dash at para 29).
39 Further,
as to the sufficiency of reasons, in Dash v (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1255, [2010]
F.C.J. No. 1565 (QL), CAIPS Notes (the older version of the present GCMS notes)
were relied upon for the purpose of supplementing the reasons in a refusal
letter:
· [27] I must disagree with the Applicant who finds these reasons to
be inadequate. It is settled law that visa applicants are owed a degree of
procedural fairness which falls at the low end of the spectrum (Pan v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 838 at para. 26, Chiau v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2
F.C. 297, [2000] F.C.J. No. 2043 (QL) (C.A.) at para. 41). CAIPS notes have
been held to constitute sufficient reasons if they provide detail sufficient
enough to allow the applicant to know why their application was rejected (Bhandal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 427, 147 A.C.W.S. (3d) 474 at para. 18).
40 The
Applicant provided insufficient evidence as to the details of the data
processing projects that he worked on (i.e. the "essence" projects)
and, based on the details that were provided, it was unclear whether his job
description really matched either the lead description or the main duties
listed in NOC 0213. Thus, while the duties listed in the TGR letter appear to
coincide with some of the NOC main duties, in the absence of clarity on the
nature of the data processing projects and the Applicant's position as a data
processing manager, the Officer reasonably concluded that there was
insufficient information to confirm that the Applicant was a computer and
information systems manger.
41 The
reasons contained in the refusal letter are far from perfect and better use of
the form letter certainly could and should have been made. However, ultimately,
it does state that because the Applicant did not provide satisfactory evidence
that he had the required work experience his application was not eligible for
processing. The Applicant thus knew why his application was denied (Kamchibekov, above, at paras 19-24) and
nothing further was required. There was no breach of procedural fairness and
the Officer's decision was reasonable.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of
general importance for certification has been proposed and none arises.
STRICKLAND J.
* * * * *
ANNEX
The following provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC-
2001, c 27 are applicable in these proceedings:
· Application
· 87.3 (1) This section applies to applications
for visas or other documents made under subsection 11(1), other than those made
by persons referred to in subsection 99(2), to sponsorship applications made by
persons referred to in subsection 13(1), to applications for permanent resident
status under subsection 21(1) or temporary resident status under subsection
22(1) made by foreign nationals in Canada, to applications for work or study
permits and to requests under subsection 25(1) made by foreign nationals
outside Canada.
· Attainment of immigration goals
The processing of
applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion
of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals
established by the Government of Canada.
· Instructions
For the purposes of
subsection (2), the Minister may give instructions with respect to the processing
of applications and requests, including instructions
· (a) establishing
categories of applications or requests to which the instructions apply;
· (a.1) establishing
conditions, by category or otherwise, that must be met before or during the
processing of an application or request;
· (b) establishing an
order, by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or
requests;
· (c) setting the number
of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any
year; and
· (d) providing for the
disposition of applications and requests, including those made subsequent to
the first application or request.
· [...]
* * *
· Application
· 87.3 (1) Le présent article s'applique aux
demandes de visa et autres documents visées au paragraphe 11(1) -- sauf à celle
faite par la personne visée au paragraphe 99(2) --, aux demandes de parrainage
faites par une personne visée au paragraphe 13(1), aux demandes de statut de
résident permanent visées au paragraphe 21(1) ou de résident temporaire visées
au paragraphe 22(1) faites par un étranger se trouvant au Canada, aux demandes
de permis de travail ou d'études ainsi qu'aux demandes prévues au paragraphe
25(1) faites par un étranger se trouvant hors du Canada.
· Atteinte des objectifs d'immigration
Le traitement des
demandes se fait de la manière qui, selon le ministre, est la plus susceptible
d'aider l'atteinte des objectifs fixés pour l'immigration par le gouvernement
fédéral.
· Instructions
Pour l'application du
paragraphe (2), le ministre peut donner des instructions sur le traitement des
demandes, notamment des instructions :
· a) prévoyant les groupes de demandes à
l'égard desquels s'appliquent les instructions;
· a.1) prévoyant des conditions, notamment par
groupe, à remplir en vue du traitement des demandes ou lors de celui-ci;
· b) prévoyant l'ordre de traitement des
demandes, notamment par groupe;
· c) précisant le nombre de demandes à traiter
par an, notamment par groupe;
· d) régissant la disposition des demandes dont
celles faites de nouveau.
· [...]
The following provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 are applicable in these proceedings:
· 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
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.
· [...]
* * *
· 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 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.
· Qualité
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.
· [...]
