Arora v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Source text
Arora v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-01-30 Neutral citation 2009 FC 107 File numbers IMM-550-08 Decision Content Date: 20090130 Docket: IMM-550-08 Citation: 2009 FC 107 Vancouver, British Columbia, January 30, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell BETWEEN: AMANPREET SINGH ARORA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] In the present case, the Applicant applied for landing in the skilled worker class. In rejecting the Applicant’s application, the Visa Officer determined that the Applicant had not “performed a substantial number of the main duties” in the job classifications for which he applied (CAIPS Notes, Applicant’s Application Record, p. 14). [2] Counsel for the Applicant relies on Justice Noël’s decision in Noman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1568 at paragraph 29 to argue that the Visa Officer erred in law because all that is required of the Applicant is that he establish that he has performed “some” of the duties in three of the four job categories in which he applied. I agree with Counsel for the Applicant’s argument that Justice Noël’s finding is correct. As a result, I find the Visa Officer’s decision is rendered in reviewable error. ORDER Accordingly, I set aside the Visa Officer’s decision and refer the matter back to a different visa officer for re-determination. “Douglas R. Campbell” Judge F…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Arora v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2009-01-30 Neutral citation 2009 FC 107 File numbers IMM-550-08 Decision Content Date: 20090130 Docket: IMM-550-08 Citation: 2009 FC 107 Vancouver, British Columbia, January 30, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell BETWEEN: AMANPREET SINGH ARORA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] In the present case, the Applicant applied for landing in the skilled worker class. In rejecting the Applicant’s application, the Visa Officer determined that the Applicant had not “performed a substantial number of the main duties” in the job classifications for which he applied (CAIPS Notes, Applicant’s Application Record, p. 14). [2] Counsel for the Applicant relies on Justice Noël’s decision in Noman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1568 at paragraph 29 to argue that the Visa Officer erred in law because all that is required of the Applicant is that he establish that he has performed “some” of the duties in three of the four job categories in which he applied. I agree with Counsel for the Applicant’s argument that Justice Noël’s finding is correct. As a result, I find the Visa Officer’s decision is rendered in reviewable error. ORDER Accordingly, I set aside the Visa Officer’s decision and refer the matter back to a different visa officer for re-determination. “Douglas R. Campbell” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-550-08 STYLE OF CAUSE: AMANPREET SINGH ARORA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: JANUARY 20, 2009 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: CAMPBELL J. DATED: JANUARY 30, 2009 APPEARANCES: Rocco Galati FOR THE APPLICANT Judy Michaely FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Rocco Galati Law Firm Professional Corporation Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Démocratie en surveillance c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 158