Obafemi-Babatunde v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 489 : Healthcare Worker PR Refusal – Officer Overlooked Evidence Supporting Required Work Hours

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Idayat Olushola Obafemi-Babatunde’s PR application under the temporary public policy for certain refugee claimants working in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The officer concluded that she had documented only 100.75 hours of qualifying employment rather than the required 120 hours. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed to reasonably consider evidence suggesting continuous employment during the relevant period.

Key Principle

Although an immigration officer is generally not required to alert an applicant to deficiencies in evidence submitted in support of an application, the officer must still meaningfully consider the evidence that is before them. Where surrounding payroll evidence reasonably supports an inference relevant to eligibility, overlooking that evidence may render the decision unreasonable if its consideration could have affected the outcome.

Background

The applicant submitted several pay stubs covering qualifying employment between June and August 2020. She also submitted a pay cheque for July 19 to July 25, 2020, but the corresponding pay stub showing the precise number of hours worked was missing.

Based on the available pay stubs, the officer calculated 100.75 qualifying hours and refused the application for failure to demonstrate the required 120 hours.

Court Findings

• No Procedural Fairness Breach Occurred

The officer was not required to notify the applicant that her documentary evidence was insufficient before refusing the application. The burden remained on the applicant to provide evidence establishing her eligibility under the public policy.

• Officer Was Not Required to Reconstruct Missing Hours

The applicant argued that the officer could determine the missing hours from the amount shown on the pay cheque. The Court did not hold that the officer was required to independently calculate the missing hours or cure deficiencies in the application.

• Existing Pay Stubs Supported Continuous Employment

The submitted pay stubs showed no payment for vacation time during the relevant periods. The Court found that this evidence suggested the applicant may have remained continuously employed despite the missing pay stub.

• Relevant Payroll Evidence Was Apparently Overlooked

The officer made no meaningful comment on the evidence suggesting continuous employment. The absence of any discussion indicated that this potentially important evidence had not been considered.

• Omission Could Have Changed the Result

The overlooked evidence was material because the application failed by fewer than 20 documented hours. Had the officer properly considered the evidence surrounding the missing pay period, the eligibility determination might have been different.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the PR refusal, and returned the application to another officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Obafemi-Babatunde v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 489 (CanLII)