Parveen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 473

• Judge: Zinn, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 473;(2015), 479 F.T.R. 66 (FC)

Parveen v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 479 F.T.R. 66 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.062

Rehana Parveen (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-3267-14; 2015 FC 473)

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

Federal Court

Zinn, J.

April 17, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, applied for judicial review of an immigration officer's decision which found that she did not meet the requirements for immigration to Canada under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Class.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer - Duty of fairness - [See first Aliens - Topic 1230.3 ].

Aliens - Topic 1230.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Provincial nominees - Parveen, a citizen of Pakistan, sought to immigrate to Canada under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Class - Her intended occupation was a nurse - An immigration officer concluded, based on Parveen's demonstrated language proficiency, that Parveen would not be able to perform the tasks of her intended profession, become employed, or find employment of a sufficient level to become economically established - After receiving the officer's pre-refusal letter, Parveen amended her application to indicate nurse aide as her intended occupation, and provided a job offer for a "support administrator" position - The officer rejected the application, noting that the job offer was for a different field - Parveen applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer breached procedural fairness by not providing her with an opportunity to respond to his concerns regarding the job offer, since those arose after the pre-refusal letter - The Federal Court dismissed the application - There was no requirement at law for the officer to make further enquiries - The onus was on Parveen to submit sufficient evidence of economic establishment - There was no duty on the officer to inform Parveen of any concerns that arose directly from the statutory requirements - Parveen failed to provide a complete description as to why the job offer was included - The fault for any misunderstanding rested with her - See paragraphs 15 and 16.

Aliens - Topic 1230.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Provincial nominees - Parveen, a citizen of Pakistan, sought to immigrate to Canada under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Class - Her intended occupation was a nurse - An immigration officer concluded, based on Parveen's demonstrated language proficiency, that Parveen would not be able to perform the tasks of her intended profession, become employed, or find employment of a sufficient level to become economically established - After receiving the officer's pre-refusal letter, Parveen amended her application to indicate nurse aide as her intended occupation - The officer rejected the application - Parveen applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer did not properly consider that she met the minimum language requirements for a nurse aide - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The officer was not bound by the established minimum language requirements when determining potential economic establishment - See paragraphs 18 and 19.

Aliens - Topic 1230.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Provincial nominees - Parveen, a citizen of Pakistan, sought to immigrate to Canada under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Class - Her intended occupation was a nurse - An immigration officer concluded, based on Parveen's demonstrated language proficiency, that Parveen would not be able to perform the tasks of her intended profession, become employed, or find employment of a sufficient level to become economically established - After receiving the officer's pre-refusal letter, Parveen amended her application to indicate nurse aide as her intended occupation, and provided a job offer for a "support administrator" position - The officer rejected the application, noting that the job offer was for a different field - Parveen applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer erred by rejecting her application on the basis that she had presented a job offer in a field unrelated to nursing - The Federal Court dismissed the application - There was nothing improper in the officer noting that the job offer was not in the intended profession - Had it been, then it might well have provided support for Parveen's claim that she could become economically established in her chosen profession - See paragraphs 24 and 25.

Aliens - Topic 1230.3

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Provincial nominees - Parveen, a citizen of Pakistan, sought to immigrate to Canada under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Class - An immigration officer concluded, based on Parveen's demonstrated language proficiency, that Parveen would not be able to perform the tasks of her intended profession, become employed, or find employment of a sufficient level to become economically established - Parveen applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer erred by not giving weight to the fact that she would have support from her brother who resided in Saskatchewan - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The officer did not give weight to Parveen's family support because it would not constitute economic establishment and would not outweigh his concerns over her language abilities - See paragraphs 26 and 27.

Cases Noticed:

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 12].

Debnath v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 586; 2010 FC 904, refd to. [para. 13].

Roohi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. A20; 2008 FC 1408, refd to. [para. 13].

Ijaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 464 F.T.R. 276; 2014 FC 920, refd to. [para. 14].

Wai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 348 F.T.R. 85; 2009 FC 780, refd to. [para. 14].

Sran v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 371; 2012 FC 791, refd to. [para. 14].

Noreen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 443 F.T.R. 19; 2013 FC 1169, refd to. [para. 14].

Uddin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 493; 2012 FC 1005, refd to. [para. 16].

Kousar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 1; 2014 FC 12, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Muhammed Zawar, for the applicant;

Marcia E. Jackson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This application for judicial review was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on January 22, 2015, before Zinn, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on April 17, 2015.