Mahmood v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 238

• Judge: Zinn, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 238;(2015), 476 F.T.R. 189 (FC)

Mahmood v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 476 F.T.R. 189 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.039

Ali Faisal Mahmood (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4210-13; IMM-4211-13; 2015 FC 238)

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

Federal Court

Zinn, J.

February 24, 2015.

Summary:

Mahmood, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence under the skilled worker category. He submitted evidence that he had an uncle living in Canada, but his application was refused. Mahmood applied for judicial review. By consent, the matter was sent to another decision-maker. Mahmood provided further documents as proof of his relationship to his uncle. The immigration officer concluded that sufficient evidence had not been provided to award adaptability points, and refused the application. Mahmood applied for judicial review. The determinative issue was whether the immigration officer breached procedural fairness and natural justice in the decision-making process.

The Federal Court allowed the application because there had been a breach of natural justice. The Court ordered that a different officer reassess the rating for adaptability, after informing Mahmood if there were any specific concerns and giving him a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and evidence.

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Aliens - Topic 1233.3 ].

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - [See Aliens - Topic 1233.3 ].

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - [See Aliens - Topic 1233.3 ].

Aliens - Topic 1233.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Units of assessment - Personal suitability or adaptability - Mahmood, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence under the skilled worker category - He submitted evidence that he had an uncle living in Canada, but his application was refused, despite two attempts - The decision under review was by letter, in which the immigration officer wrote that Mahmood had been awarded 66 points; the minimum requirement was 67 points - The officer wrote: "Sufficient evidence has not been provided to award adaptability points for a relative in Canada" - The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application because there had been a breach of natural justice - "The officer breached procedural fairness in two respects. First, it is evident from the CAIPS notes that the officer's real concern was the genuineness of the uncle's birth certificate, but this concern was never squarely put to Mr. Mahmood. Second, the officer unfairly assessed the application against evidence the officer alleged was specifically sought, but was not." - The Court ordered that a different officer reassess the rating for adaptability, after informing Mahmood if there were any specific concerns and giving him a reasonable opportunity to provide further information and evidence - See paragraphs 11 and 27.

Cases Noticed:

Hassani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 302 F.T.R. 39; 2006 FC 1283, refd to. [para. 14].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 243 N.R. 22 (SCC), refd to. [para. 14].

Kuthathasan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2008] F.C.J. No. 587, refd to. [para. 14].

Ororunshola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1383, refd to. [para. 14].

John v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 167 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Sketchley v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 344 N.R. 257; 2005 FCA 404, refd to. [para. 14].

Counsel:

Matthew Jeffery, for the applicant;

Charles J. Jubenville, 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 was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 29, 2015, before Zinn, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated February 24, 2015, at Vancouver, British Columbia.