Prasad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2011) 391 F.T.R. 8 (FC)

• Judge: O'Reilly, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 28, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 391 F.T.R. 8 (FC);2011 FC 645

Prasad v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 8 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.031

Puthenpurackal Gopi Prasad (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5486-10; 2011 FC 645)

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

Federal Court

O'Reilly, J.

June 6, 2011.

Summary:

Prasad, a citizen of India, applied for permanent residence in Canada as a skilled worker. A visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in London concluded that Prasad did not meet the 67-point threshold required for a successful application. Prasad applied for judicial review, arguing that he would have obtained the required number of points if the officer had given him proper credit for his educational qualifications.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for reconsideration. A related question was certified for appellate consideration.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - [See Aliens - Topic 1233.4 ].

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 - Prasad, a citizen of India, applied for permanent residence in Canada as a skilled worker - A visa officer concluded that Prasad did not meet the 67-point threshold required for a successful application - Prasad obtained a three-year diploma in computer science at a polytechnical college after completing secondary school - In total, he had completed 15 years of full-time study - The visa officer found that Prasad could have entered the diploma program after Grade 10 (i.e., Grades 11 and 12 years were superfluous for the attainment of his diploma) - Accordingly, the officer, applying s. 78(2)(c)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, only credited Prasad with a total of 13 years of full-time study - Prasad applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - The court held that even if the officer's approach to the years of study was correct, he had a duty to go on and consider s. 78(4) (i.e., whether there were special circumstances that required that the applicant receive the number of points corresponding with his educational credential) - Here, the officer did not consider the application of s. 78(4) and that error alone justified allowing the application.

Cases Noticed:

Bhuiya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 631; 2008 FC 878, refd to. [para. 9].

Roberts v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 304; 2009 FC 518, refd to. [para. 9].

Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 390 F.T.R. 166; 2011 FC 617, refd to. [para. 9].

Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 649; 2010 FC 983, refd to. [para. 10].

Kabir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 375 F.T.R. 32; 2010 FC 995, refd to. [para. 10].

Hasan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 379 F.T.R. 17; 2010 FC 1206, refd to. [para. 12].

Rabeya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 387 F.T.R. 109; 2011 FC 370, refd to. [para. 12].

McLachlan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 354 F.T.R. 176; 2009 FC 975, refd to. [para. 13].

Marr v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 387 F.T.R. 138; 2011 FC 367, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, sect. 78(2)(c)(i) [para. 7, Annex]; sect. 78(2)(e)(i) [para. 8, Annex]; sect. 78(4) [para. 13, Annex].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations - see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

Counsel:

Matthew Jeffery, for the applicant;

Tamrat Gebeyehu, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Matthew Jeffery, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 28, 2011, in Toronto, Ontario, before O'Reilly, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on June 6, 2011.