Four Case Comments

16th Jun 2013 Comments Off on Four Case Comments

Hussain v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 636

This was a FSWP case involving an officer who refused an applicant’s application because the officer determined that the applicant’s work experience was equivalent to “computer and information systems administrator” rather than “computer and information systems manager”.  In overturning the decision, the Court determined that the question is not which National Occupational Classification most resembles an applicant’s experience, but rather the applicant can demonstrate that he/she has one year of skilled work experience in a specific NOC.

The following three paragraphs are the relevant part of the decision:

With respect to its comments regarding the similarities between the Applicant’s experience and NOC 2281, the Respondent falls into the same trap as the Visa Officer – the question is not whether the Applicant’s duties bear more of a resemblance to another category than to the one sought, but whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements of the category in question.

Although it is not for this Court to re-weigh the Visa Officer’s conclusions in this regard, the Applicant is correct to assert that the similarity with NOC 2281 is the sole explanation offered by the Visa Officer in support of his conclusion that the information submitted was insufficient to show that the Applicant satisfied the requirements of NOC 0213.

This Court is not an expert in the technological terms connected with the various NOC codes and cannot be required to assess the sufficiency of the Applicant’s application where the Visa Officer has provided no relevant comments or reasons in that regard.  The Applicant is correct in his assertion that the fact that duties may “bear more resemblance” to another category is irrelevant where an officer has failed to assess the relevance of the duties in relation to the particular category in question and has provided no analysis comparing the requirements of the two codes mentioned.

 » Read more about: Four Case Comments  »

Read more ›

A Common Sense Approach to A44 Reports

26th Mar 2013 Comments Off on A Common Sense Approach to A44 Reports

Last updated on February 3rd, 2019

Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the “Act“) provides that an officer who believes that a foreign national or permanent resident in Canada is inadmissible to Canada (for criminality, health, overstay, working without authorization, etc.) may prepare a report alleging the inadmissibility (commonly known as an “A44 Report“).   The Act further provides that once an officer prepares an A44 Report, then the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) (the agency generally responsible for this) may commence removal proceedings, or, when necessary, refer the matter to the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent administrative tribunal.

The use of the term “may” in the Act has caused much confusion.

In Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 126 (“Cha“), the Federal Court of Appeal (the “FCA“) declared that the use of the word “may” did not actually grant CBSA officers broad discretion to exercise or not to exercise the power to write A44 Reports and to commence removal proceedings when it believed that someone was inadmissible to Canada.  The FCA stated (citations removed for ease of reading):

In Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) at pages 623 to 626, Létourneau J.A. reminded us that the use of the word “may” is often a signal that a margin of discretion is given to an administrative decision maker. It can sometimes be read in context as “must” or “shall”, thereby rebutting the presumptive rule in section 11 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I‑21 that “may” is permissive. It can also be read as no more than a signal from the legislator that an official is being empowered to do something.

 » Read more about: A Common Sense Approach to A44 Reports  »

Read more ›

Deferring Removal

25th Dec 2010 Comments Off on Deferring Removal

People who either face removal or who have received a removal order should contact a lawyer immediately to determine what their options are. The purpose of this post is to provide an overview of the legislative scheme for deferring removal orders. It provides a general framework, and cannot substitute the advice that a lawyer can give when he applies these facts to your situation.

Read more ›