Bano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 568 : Court Finds Provincial Nominee Refusal Unreasonable Where Officer Imposed an Unjustified Higher Language Threshold

Saima Bano and her husband, Muhammad Irfan, sought judicial review of a visa officer’s refusal of their permanent residence application under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program. Although Saskatchewan had nominated Bano and her language scores met the province’s minimum recommended level, the officer concluded that her English was insufficient for economic establishment in Canada. The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer imposed a higher language threshold without adequately explaining or justifying it.

Key Principle

A provincial nomination creates a presumption that an applicant has the ability to become economically established in Canada. Although federal visa officers retain final authority and may reach a different conclusion, departure from the province’s assessment must be justified, transparent and intelligible. An officer cannot arbitrarily impose a higher language threshold without explaining why the applicant’s demonstrated proficiency is insufficient for the actual duties and language demands of the nominated occupation.

Background

Bano, a Pakistani citizen with two undergraduate degrees and a Master’s degree in Education, received a Saskatchewan nomination and a work permit support letter for employment as a retail salesperson. Her permanent residence application showed IELTS results equivalent to CLB 6 in listening, writing and speaking, and CLB 4 in reading.

A procedural fairness letter acknowledged that her scores met or exceeded Saskatchewan’s minimum recommended level but questioned whether they were sufficient for retail work involving interaction with the public. The officer suggested that CLB 6 to 7, or even CLB 8 and above, could reasonably be expected.

Bano responded with updated IELTS results, a permanent head cashier job offer, and evidence that her principal duties would largely involve administrative work, including accounts, schedules, spreadsheets, checkout supervision and inventory management. The officer nevertheless refused the application.

Court Findings

• Provincial Nomination Required Meaningful Deference

The Court explained that the PNP gives provinces flexibility to select immigrants suited to their particular economic needs, including individuals who might not satisfy federal economic program criteria. A provincial nomination is not binding on IRCC, but it creates a presumption of economic establishment. Federal officers must therefore justify a decision that departs from the provincial assessment.

• Higher Language Standard Was Not Justified

The officer accepted that Bano met Saskatchewan’s language requirements yet suggested that moderate-to-high proficiency was needed because retail work involved public interaction. The Court found no adequate basis for this conclusion. The applicable occupational information contemplated basic to intermediate language skills, while Bano’s proposed head cashier duties involved limited public interaction and were mainly administrative.

• CLB 6 Versus CLB 7 Distinction Was Arbitrary

The officer described the difference between CLB 6 and CLB 7 as “significant” but identified no source or reasoning supporting that distinction. The Court found it unclear why the higher end of the officer’s self-described “moderate” range was necessary. References to “common understanding” and habits from previous practice did not provide the justification required for departing from the provincial nomination.

Outcome

The Court granted judicial review, set aside the permanent residence refusal, and returned the application for redetermination by a different officer. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Bano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 568 (CanLII)