Khosrofyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1586 : Quebec Skilled Worker PR Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Overlooked Quebec Intent Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed Vahan Khosrofyan’s PR refusal under the Quebec skilled worker class. The officer found he had not established an intention to reside in Quebec. The Court held the decision unreasonable because material evidence about changed plans, French-language efforts, and family support in Quebec was overlooked.

Key Principle

An applicant’s intention to reside in Quebec must be assessed holistically from all relevant evidence. Prior plans to live elsewhere and French-language ability may be relevant, but neither is determinative. An officer must consider credible evidence showing changed intentions and concrete steps consistent with settling in Quebec.

Background

The applicant, an Armenian citizen, sought PR as a Quebec skilled worker. The officer relied on a 2015 Express Entry profile indicating an intention to live in Alberta, questioned his French-language efforts, and discounted support from his wife’s aunt in Laval because he had never visited her. He later also sought administrative reconsideration.

Court Findings

• Prior Alberta Intent Was Relevant but Not Determinative

The Court accepted that the earlier Express Entry profile showing an intention to reside in Alberta was relevant. However, the officer appeared to treat it as an insuperable obstacle. The Court emphasized that plans may change, so past intent could not replace a proper assessment of current evidence.

• French Ability Could Properly Be Considered

The Court rejected the argument that considering French ability imposed an unlawful proficiency requirement. Knowledge of French, or steps taken to learn it, may legitimately inform whether an applicant intends to reside in Quebec. The requirement remained proof of intent, not attainment of any particular proficiency level.

• Earlier French Study Was Overlooked

The applicant stated that he had studied French independently for two and a half years through mobile applications and online courses. His eldest daughter had also studied French for two years. The officer’s focus on formal lessons failed to account for this earlier evidence of language preparation.

• Timing of Formal Lessons Was Overemphasized

The officer noted that formal French lessons began only after the applicant was asked to provide evidence of Quebec intent. The Court found this incomplete because it ignored his prior self-directed study. Focusing only on formal lessons created a misleading picture of when he began preparing for settlement in Quebec.

• Family Support in Quebec Was Improperly Discounted

The applicant relied on his wife’s aunt in Laval, who offered to assist the family after arrival. The officer discounted this tie because he had never visited her. The Court found that the aunt’s detailed letter explained the lack of in-person visits, but the officer failed to consider that explanation.

• Cumulative Omissions Made the Decision Unreasonable

The Court stressed that it was not deciding whether the applicant actually intended to reside in Quebec. Its role was to assess whether the officer’s findings were supported by the record. By overlooking changed plans, sustained French study, and family support, the officer’s reasoning lacked sufficient justification.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review of the PR refusal and remitted the application to a different visa officer. The separate judicial review of the denied reconsideration request became moot and was dismissed. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Khosrofyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1586 (CanLII)