Ijaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 67

• Judge: Strickland, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 27, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 67;(2015), 474 F.T.R. 6 (FC)

Ijaz v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 474 F.T.R. 6 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.002

Minaa Ijaz (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4516-13; 2015 FC 67)

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

Federal Court

Strickland, J.

January 16, 2015.

Summary:

Ijaz, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence as a federal skilled worker. An immigration officer denied her application, finding that Ijaz had not demonstrated that she would be capable of becoming economically established in Canada. Ijaz had obtained only 57 of the required 67 points based on the selection criteria, including five of a potential 25 for education as set out in s. 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Ijaz applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer had erred in his interpretation of the Regulations and that she was entitled to a minimum of 19 points for education.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The officer's decision was reasonable. However, the Regulations could potentially be interpreted in more than one way. Accordingly, the court certified the following question: "When assessing a federal skilled worker class application for permanent residency and the points to be awarded for education under s. 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRP Regulations), do the IRP Regulations require an equivalency assessment, as required by s. 75(2) and defined by s. 73(1), of a foreign diploma, certificate or credential to be evaluated and explicitly stated as being equivalent to a diploma, certificate or credential issued on the completion of a Canadian program of study or training, as defined in s. 73(1) as a 'Canadian educational credential'? Or, is a determination and statement of the equivalent value of the foreign diploma, certificate or credential, expressed as a number of years of study in Canada, sufficient to award points pursuant to s. 78(1)?"

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - [See Aliens - Topic 1233.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1233.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Units of assessment - Education - Ijaz, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence as a federal skilled worker - She submitted an educational equivalency assessment from World Education Services Canada (WES) which summarized her Pakistani credentials as being the Canadian equivalent of two years of undergraduate study and two years of professional study - An immigration officer found that the WES assessment was not the equivalent of a "Canadian educational credential", which was defined in s. 73(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations as meaning a credential that was issued on the completion of a Canadian course of study - He awarded Ijaz only five of a possible 25 points for education and ultimately rejected her application - Ijaz applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer was required to award her points according to the equivalency assessment in the WES report - The Federal Court dismissed the application - It was open to the officer to interpret the WES report and the Regulations as he did - The WES report did not state that Ijaz's credentials were equivalent to Canadian credentials - The officer relied on this as conclusive evidence as required by s. 75(8) of the Regulations - Thus, while the officer had discretion in interpreting ambiguous language in the WES report, he had no discretion on the points to be awarded once the meaning of the report had been ascertained - See paragraphs 39 to 51.

Aliens - Topic 1304

Admission - Immigrants - Judicial review - Scope or standard of - Ijaz, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence as a federal skilled worker - An immigration officer awarded Ijaz only five of a possible 25 points for education and ultimately rejected her application - Ijaz applied for judicial review - At issue was whether an equivalency assessment conducted for the purpose of awarding points based on education under s. 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations required a foreign diploma, certificate or credential to be the equivalent of a completed Canadian educational credential - The Federal Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness - The underlying question was one of statutory interpretation and the officer was interpreting his home statute - Assessing the education component required the interpretation of ss. 73 and 78 of the Regulations and the results of an equivalency assessment - This was a question of mixed fact and law and was entitled to deference - See paragraphs 20 to 33.

Cases Noticed:

Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 426 N.R. 12; 2011 FCA 339, refd to. [para. 17].

Patel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 419 N.R. 321; 2011 FCA 187, refd to. [para. 17].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 17].

Kandola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 456 N.R. 115; 2014 FCA 85, refd to. [para. 17].

Kinsel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 459 N.R. 116; 2014 FCA 126, refd to. [para. 17].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 18].

Vasquez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 633; 2012 FC 1255, refd to. [para. 18].

Shirazi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 406 F.T.R. 290; 2012 FC 306, refd to. [para. 18].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 19].

Zhang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 446 N.R. 382; 2013 FCA 168, refd to. [para. 19].

Wangden v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2009), 398 N.R. 265; 2009 FCA 344; affing. (2008), 336 F.T.R. 242; 2008 FC 1230, refd to. [para. 19].

B010 v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 443 N.R. 1; 2013 FCA 87, leave to appeal refused 466 N.R. 393 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 19].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2011), 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 19].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, folld. [para. 23].

Kaur et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 458 F.T.R. 277; 2014 FC 678, refd to. [para. 26].

Khanoyan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 197; 2013 FC 446, refd to. [para. 26].

Tabañag v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 798; 2011 FC 1293, refd to. [para. 26].

Mansour et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 155; 2013 FC 343, refd to. [para. 26].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith (2011), 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 31].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 32].

Philbean v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 281; 2011 FC 487, refd to. [para. 32].

Debnath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 586; 2010 FC 904, refd to. [para. 32].

Roohi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. A20; 2008 FC 1408, refd to. [para. 32].

Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. et al. v. Teva Canada Ltd. (2014), 456 N.R. 241; 2014 FCA 67, refd to. [para. 43].

Sran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 371; 2012 FC 791, refd to. [para. 44].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 44].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 49].

Wise v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 200; 2014 FC 1027, refd to. [para. 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, sect. 73 [para. 6]; sect. 78 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Matthew Jeffery, for the applicant;

Margherita Braccio, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Matthew Jeffery, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 27, 2014, before Strickland, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 16, 2015.