Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

[2011] 2 F.C.R. D-15

Citizenship and Immigration

Status in Canada

Permanent Residents

Judicial review of visa officer’s decision refusing application for permanent residence under federal skilled worker class—Applicant possessing two Masters’ degrees but only one considered—State of law on interpretation of Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s. 78 divided—More precisely, uncertainty existing as to how two Masters’ degrees to be assessed—“[E]ducational credential” loosely defined in Regulations, s. 73, emphasizing actual credential awarded, not rank or grade—Plain reading of s. 78(3)(b)(i) supporting contention that single educational credential that results in highest number of points to be considered—Therefore, applicant’s second Masters’ degree should have been considered since constituting single educational credential resulting in highest number of points—Common meaning between English, French definition of “educational credential” having to be found—Word “diplôme” French version of “educational credential”—Common meaning being credential itself, not rank or grade—“[C]redential” having to be read as actual diploma, title, degree completed—Interpretation giving full effect to legislative objectives, important consideration of whether potential skilled worker can become economically established in Canada—Limited definition of “educational credential” not giving rise to double-counting within the meaning of s. 78(3)—Disjunctive reading of factors in Regulations, s. 78(2)(f) regarding awarding of points for education not required—Illogical to discount applicant’s second Masters’ degree—Balance between absolute discretion in assessing educational credentials, mechanistic analysis found within points-based system, where highest credential to be considered—Question regarding consideration of second Masters’ degree under Regulations certified—Application allowed.

Rabeya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (IMM-2954-10, 2011 FC 370, Noël J., judgment dated March 25, 2011, 18 pp.)

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.