Category: Skilled worker

The Court set aside a decision to refuse to grant authorization to return under section 52 holding: [19] In my view, the officer misunderstood the purpose of the ARC process, which led him to take into account factors that were not relevant and to disregard others that he should have considered in his decision. This does not fall ‘‘within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law’’(Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at para. 47).

The Court held that the officer erred because he failed to consider whether or not the two year degree was equivalent to full time.

The Court concluded that the officer had jurisdiction to reopen a negative decision on a skilled worker application but did not err in refusing to do so because the applicant had sufficient notice of the requirements and failed to comply with them.

The Court concluded that the date the application was received was the relevant date for the application of the eligibility rules not the day it was sent.

The Court found that the officer ought to have disclosed a CBSA report that alleged certain funds were proceeds of crime and found a breach of natural justice. The Court provides a good analysis of what is extrinsic evidence.

The Court set aside a decision on breach of fairness. Although a fairness letter was sent to the applicant it failed to properly explain the issue so the applicant was denied the opportunity to address the concerns.

The Court set aside a decision. When the application is prima facie complete if the error has concerns he has a duty to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond.

the Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a refusal of a skilled worker application. The court found that there was no breach of natural justice when the officer refused an application based on deficient employment letters. This case should be contrasted with Gulati v MCI 2010 FC 451 where a decision was set aside because the officer ignored other evidence that sustained the application.

The Court set aside a decision of a visa officer holding that given that there was a credibility issue fairness required that the applicant be given an opportunity to respond prior to the decision

The Court upheld a decision of the officer who refused to assess points for a relative residing in Canada due to a lack of documentation. The Court found that there was no fettering of discretion on the facts of the case. The refusal to reopen was not unreasonable although the officer had the right to reopen if he so chose.