NAEEM ULLAH Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2016 FC 607

Date: 20160601 Docket: IMM-1884-15 Citation: 2016 FC 607 Ottawa, Ontario, June 1, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN: NAEEM ULLAH Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Naeem Ullah (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of a decision of a visa officer (the “Visa Officer”), dated March13, 2015.

In that decision, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant’s application for permanent residence as a member of the provincialnominee class on the ground that he was not likely to become economically established in Canada. [2] The Applicant applied for permanent residence as a member of the provincial nominee class in July 2013 after he wasnominated by the province of Saskatchewan. [3] Although the Applicant is trained as a software specialist, he received a job offer to work as a dishwasher in Regina,Saskatchewan. [4] The Visa Officer, in his March 13, 2015 decision, found that the Applicant lacked the necessary English language skills andwork experience to perform the duties of a dishwasher, and as such, is unlikely to become economically established in Canada. [5] The Visa Officer’s determination that the Applicant could not become economically established in Canada involves aquestion of mixed fact and law and is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Dunsmuir v.

New Brunswick,2008 SCC 9 , [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at paragraph 51. The reasonableness standard requires that a decision be intelligible,transparent, and justifiable, falling within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes; see Dunsmuir, supra at paragraph 47. [6] I agree with the Applicant’s submissions that the Visa Officer’s decision does not meet that standard.

There is no evidence inthe record to show that he lacks the necessary English language skills or job training to perform the dishwashing job. [7] In the result, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Visa Officer is set aside and the matter isremitted for re-determination. There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Visa Officer is set aside andthe matter is remitted for re-determination. There is no question for certification arising. “E.

Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1884-15 STYLE OF CAUSE: NAEEM ULLAH v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING: TOROnto, ontario DATE OF HEARING: December 16, 2015 JUDGMENT AND reasons: HENEGHAN J. DATED: June 1, 2016 APPEARANCES : Aisling Bondy For The Applicant Laoura Christodoulides For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Aisling Bondy Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant William F. Pentney, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent