KAMYAR AHMADI AZARI Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2024 FC 34

Date: 20240110 Docket: IMM-12923-22 Citation: 2024 FC 34 Ottawa, Ontario, January 10, 2024 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen BETWEEN: KAMYAR AHMADI AZARIApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of an immigration officer [Officer] dated November 29, 2022, wherein theOfficer concluded that the Applicant had failed to meet the criteria for the issuance of a work permit pursuant to the Immigration andRefugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2022-227 [Regulations] and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Iran who applied for a work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program with a positiveLabour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA] in the high wage stream. [3] By letter dated November 29, 2022, the Applicant was advised that his work permit was denied, with the Officer stating that theywere not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay, as stipulated by subsection 200(1)(

b) of the Regulations,based on the following factors: The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in your job offer and your assets and financial situation are insufficient to supportthe stated purpose of travel for yourself (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). You do not have significant family ties outside Canada. [4] Following the commencement of this application for judicial review, the Officer’s notes as contained in the Global Case ManagementSystem [GCMS] were produced to the Applicant. The GCMS notes, which form part of the reasons for decision, provide as follows: File reviewed.

PA is a 29 single male seeking LMIA as a cabinet maker. Insufficient documents have been submitted tosupport his financial situation – such as bank statements/history of bank deposits. Based upon this information, PA is highlymobile. PA has provided insufficient evidence on file to satisfy me of his establishment in home country. [5] The sole issue for determination is whether the Officer’s decision was reasonable.

When reviewing for reasonableness, the Courtmust take a "“reasons first”" approach and determine whether the decision under review, including both its rationale and outcome, istransparent, intelligible and justified [see Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 8]. A reasonabledecision is one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and lawthat constrain the decision-maker [see Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15, 85].

The Court willintervene only if it is satisfied there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisitedegree of justification, intelligibility and transparency [see Adenjij-Adele v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC418 at para 11]. [6] While the Applicant has raised a number of issues on this application, I find that the determinative issue is the Officer’s finding thatthe Applicant lacked significant family ties outside of Canada.

The Officer provides no justification for this determination in the GCMSnotes, which is problematic given that the Applicant’s Family Information form filed as part of his work permit application lists hismother, father, sister and brother as family members living in Iran, with only one brother living in Canada.

I find that the Officer’s failureto address this evidence, which directly contradicts the Officer’s determination, renders the Officer’s decision unreasonable [see Pirzadav Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 835 at para 30, citing Cepeda-Gutierrez v Canada (Minister of Citizenshipand Immigration), (FC), [1999] 1 FC 53 at para 15; Vavilov, supra at para 128]. [7] In the circumstances, I find that the Officer’s decision cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility andtransparency required of a reasonable decision.

Accordingly, the application for judicial review shall be granted, the Officer’s decisionshall be set aside and the matter shall be remitted to a different officer for redetermination. [8] No question for certification was raised and I agree that none arises. JUDGMENT in IMM-12923-22 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1. The application for judicial review is granted.

2 . The November 29, 2022 decision refusing the Applicant’s application for a work permit is hereby set aside and the matter shall be remitted to a different officer for redetermination. 3 . The parties proposed no question for certification and none arises. “Mandy Aylen” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-12923-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: KAMYAR AHMADI AZARI v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HEARD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: january 10, 2024 JUDGMENT and reasons: AyLEN J.

DATED: JANUARY 10, 2024 APPEARANCES : Anna Davtyan For The Applicant Kareena Wilding For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Barrister & Solicitor Thornhill, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent