Akram v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 826

• Judge: Mosley, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2004 FC 826;(2004), 254 F.T.R. 137 (FC)

Akram v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2004), 254 F.T.R. 137 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.037

Omar Akram (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4286-03; 2004 FC 826)

Indexed As: Akram v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

June 8, 2004.

Summary:

Akram applied for permanent residence as an independent skilled worker before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and Regulations thereunder came into force. However, in accordance with the applicable transitional provisions, his application was assessed under the new legislation which imposed more stringent conditions on skilled workers. His application was denied. He applied for judicial review, arguing that immigration authorities breached the duty of fairness in failing to provide him with notice of changes that had taken place to the legislation before denying his application.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer - Duty to notify re legislation changes -[See Aliens - Topic 1233 ].

Aliens - Topic 1233

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Units of assessment or points - Occupations or economic class (incl. skilled workers) - Akram applied for permanent residence in Canada as a independent skilled worker in January 2002 - Because his application was received after January 1, 2002, and was pending immediately before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the new Regulations came into effect in June 2002, his application was assessed under the new regime - The new Regulations imposed a new pass mark for independent skilled workers (i.e., 75 units of assessment) - His application was denied - Akram applied for judicial review, arguing that immigration authorities breached the duty of fairness in failing to provide him with notice of changes that had taken place to the legislation before denying his application - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court held that, in these circumstances, there was no duty to advise him of how the changes affected him and how the transitional provisions affected his assessment.

Cases Noticed:

Choi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 763; 139 N.R. 182 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 8].

Yu (W.) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 36 F.T.R. 296; 11 Imm. L.R.(2d) 176 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Kazi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 238 F.T.R. 99 (F.C.), dist. [para. 15].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 18].

Rani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 715 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Gyamfuah et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 80 F.T.R. 58 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 228 F.T.R. 52 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Bath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 530 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 27].

Counsel:

M. Max Chaudhary, for the applicant;

Mielka Visnic, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

M. Max Chaudhary, Chaudhary Law Office, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 7, 2004, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 8, 2004.