I think, in plain english, this is about a bunch of public servants who had no f****** clue what they talking about.

>>I read it as a single bureaucrat didn't understand what FoxPro is.
>
>There are two issues here. The first is how did the examiner come to make his decision and second, what was the standard of review. What a programming langauge is or is not is a question of fact. Likely, the standard of review is abuse of descretion. i.e., the reviewing judge will give great deference to the findings of fact - and will only set aside if an abuse of descretion exists. Needless to say, when an abuse of descretion exists, it is far more likely than not - those decsions will not be overturned.
>
>In this case, it appears that the examiner was told what FoxPro was - and the examiner refused to consider any other evidence - particularly that of the petitoiner. This is where the abuse of descretion is found.
>
>So...the real issue is not that the bureaucrat did not understand what FoxPro is. Rather, the real issue is that the bureaucrat failed to excercise any descretion in finding out what FoxPro is. i.e., the examiner committed a procedural error that would not pass a harmless error analysis.
>
>The irony could be that upon reconsideration, if there is a surplus of Fox developers in Canada, the petitioner may still be denied access.