Zarrabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1336 : TR-to-PR Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Evidence of Qualifying Cashier Duties

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Mirpouria Zarrabi’s PR application under the Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway. The officer found that he lacked the required 1,560 hours of qualifying work because his later Starbucks position was classified as a food service supervisor rather than an eligible cashier occupation. The Court granted judicial review because the officer did not meaningfully assess the evidence submitted in response to the procedural fairness letter.

Key Principle

When determining an applicant’s occupational classification, an officer must assess the actual duties performed rather than relying primarily on the job title. An additional supervisory responsibility does not necessarily change the essential nature of an otherwise qualifying position. Where an applicant responds directly to a procedural fairness concern with material employment evidence, the officer must provide a transparent explanation for rejecting that evidence.

Background

The applicant needed 1,560 hours of eligible Canadian work experience. The officer accepted 1,254.34 hours worked as a cashier barista but excluded an additional 648.65 hours worked as a supervising barista or shift supervisor.

In response to a procedural fairness letter, the applicant submitted an employer letter explaining that his duties remained largely those of a cashier barista, with the added responsibility of supervising other baristas during the shift.

Court Findings

• Procedural Fairness Response Was Not Meaningfully Addressed

The officer raised concerns about the applicant’s qualifying work hours and invited a response. However, the final decision did not mention the applicant’s explanation or the Starbucks letter describing his duties.

Because this evidence directly addressed the determinative concern, the officer’s failure to engage with it prevented the applicant and the Court from understanding why it was rejected.

• Actual Duties Were More Important Than the Job Title

Occupational classifications are intended to reflect the work actually performed, including an employee’s tasks, responsibilities, training, and experience. The officer therefore had to determine the essential nature of the applicant’s work rather than classify it solely from the title “shift supervisor.”

• Additional Supervisory Task Was Not Necessarily Determinative

Starbucks explained that the supervising barista position largely involved the same cashier duties, with only one added responsibility of supervising baristas on duty. The officer did not explain how this additional task transformed the entire position into a food service supervisor occupation.

The Court noted that performing one tangential duty from another occupational category does not automatically change the proper classification of the position as a whole.

• Competing Occupational Classification Required Analysis

The officer classified the later employment under the food service supervisor category, which was ineligible under the Pathway. However, the reasons did not compare the applicant’s documented duties with the functions associated with either occupational category.

Without that comparison, it was difficult to understand why the cashier classification no longer applied after the applicant assumed limited supervisory responsibilities.

• Presumption That Evidence Was Considered Was Rebutted

Officers are generally presumed to have reviewed all evidence and need not discuss every document. That presumption did not resolve this case because the omitted evidence was material, directly responsive to the fairness concern, and potentially decisive of the applicant’s eligibility.

• Decision Lacked Transparency and Justification

The applicant bore the burden of proving that he met the Pathway requirements, and the officer could not count hours from an ineligible occupation. Nevertheless, the failure to explain why the employer’s detailed evidence did not establish qualifying cashier duties rendered the refusal unintelligible and unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the PR application to a different officer for redetermination. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Zarrabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1336 (CanLII)