Federal Court Dismisses Work Permit and Visitor Visa Refusal Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260603 Dockets: IMM-3012-25 IMM-3013-25 Citation: 2026 FC 724 Ottawa, Ontario, June 3, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]-[NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This proceeding is a consolidation of two applications for judicial review: one on the refusal of a work permit for the [NAME[NAME], [APPELLANT] [[NAME[NAME]], and a second for the refusal of a visitor visa for the [NAME], [APPELLANT] [[NAME]]. The decisions, both dated December 9, 2024 [Decisions] and made by an [NAME] [[NAME]] officer [Officer] are the subject of this judicial review. [ 2 ] The Applicants’ respective work permit and visitor visa were refused because they failed to satisfy the Officer that they would leave Canada at the end of their stay. The Applicants argued the Decision lacked justification, intelligibility, and transparency. For the following reasons, I dismiss this application for judicial review.

II. Background Facts [ 3 ] The [NAME[NAME] is a citizen of Pakistan, now residing in Saudi Arabia with her husband and two children. One of her children, her daughter [APPELLANT], was born in [DATE]. The [NAME[NAME] is employed as an Administrative Assistant and Teacher at the [COMPANY] while her husband is a Customer Service Manager. [ 4 ] In August 2023, the [NAME[NAME] received an offer from [NAME] [APPELLANT]. operating as [COMPANY] for a full-time Administrative Assistant position supported by a [NAME] for three years. The [NAME[NAME] signed her contract on March 25, 2024. [ 5 ] In March 2024, the [NAME[NAME] applied for an employer-specific work permit on her own behalf, as well as an application for a temporary resident visa [TRV] for the [NAME]. Further documents were requested from the [NAME[NAME] on April 3, 2024, which were received 20 days later. These applications were refused on April 28, 2024. [ 6 ] The Applicants filed their Applications for Leave and for Judicial Review [ALJR] with the Federal Court of Canada on June 10, 2024. However, in an entry in the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes dated September 22, 2024, the ALJRs were discontinued after the parties had agreed to have the matters redetermined by different [NAME] officers with the opportunity to make additional submissions. The Applicants were advised on October 31, 2024, that they had 30 days to provide updated documents in support of their application. The Applicants provided a letter of intent from the [NAME[NAME], a letter of support from the [NAME[NAME]’s [NAME], bank statements, and documents confirming the [NAME[NAME] and her husband’s current employment in Saudi Arabia. On December 9, 2024, the Officer refused the applications.

III. Decisions Under Review A. Work Permit Refusal [ 7 ] The [NAME[NAME]’s application for a work permit was reassessed, with reasons outlined in a GCMS entry dated December 9, 2024. This redetermination referred to previously submitted documents and cited similar concerns as the initial refusal but further discussed the “Saudization” of her current industry. While her employer claims to prioritize [NAME] in hiring, there remains a pressure to hire [NAME]. As such, her status related to employment is not secure. [ 8 ] The Officer further discussed the family’s limited ties to Pakistan and the motivation to find permanent opportunities in Canada because of their modest salaries and savings. Notably also, the [NAME[NAME] is travelling only with her daughter on a temporary resident visa and not a study permit. On the face of the record, the Officer found it was unclear how the [NAME[NAME] will manage both a full-time position and child-rearing responsibilities. Her family’s weak ties outside of Canada, namely their temporary status in Saudi Arabia, further call into question whether the [NAME[NAME] would leave Canada at the end of her stay. B. Visitor Visa Refusal [ 9 ] The Officer was not satisfied the [NAME] would leave Canada at the end of her stay considering the details of her visit are inconsistent with a “temporary stay” and her lack of significant family ties outside of Canada. [ 10 ] The [NAME[NAME]’s application for a visitor visa was reassessed on December 9, 2024. The [NAME] reiterated their reasons for refusing the [NAME[NAME]’s application for a work permit, noting only at the end of the entry “[child] will necessitate support from [NAME] as declared in application. It is not clear how [NAME] will be able to balance child caring duties and work full time in Canada.” IV. Issue and Standard of Review [ 11 ] The issue to be decided by this Court is whether the Decisions are unreasonable. Both parties agree the applicable standard of review is reasonableness. In this respect, the role of the reviewing court is to examine the decision maker’s reasoning and determine whether the decision is based on an  “internally coherent and rational chain of analysis”  and is  “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v   [NAME],  2019 SCC 65 at para 85 [ [NAME] ];  [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),  2023 SCC 21 at para 64). Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating the decision is unreasonable, the reviewing court must ask  “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness — justification, transparency and intelligibility” ( [NAME] at para 99).

V. Analysis [ 12 ] Firstly, regarding the determination by the Officer that the [NAME[NAME] had demonstrated limited employment opportunities in Saudi Arabia, the Officer noted that both the [NAME[NAME] and her husband work in occupations that are subject to Saudization. Saudization is “a state effort to give Saudis better access to jobs currently held by foreigners” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 102 at para 17 [ [NAME] ]). For the Applicants, the Officer’s reference to the “Saudization” of the job market in Saudi Arabia and its impact on the [NAME[NAME]’s chances of finding and maintaining employment are without justification and are intelligible. [ 13 ] The Applicants argue the Officer should have considered key evidence of the [NAME[NAME]’s 14-year tenure at her current school, as well as her teaching role at other schools since 2005. The Officer does not explain why the [NAME[NAME] has limited employment opportunities in Saudi Arabia, considering she is currently employed for the same role she seeks in Canada. [ 14 ] The Applicants point out that this Court has underscored the importance of giving sufficient weight to the evidence of an [NAME]’s employment history in their country of residence, particularly where the officer has found an [NAME] has limited employment prospects ( [NAME] v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) , 2019 FC 1245 at para 26). [ 15 ] The Applicants believe the Officer’s conclusions are based on external knowledge which is unreasonable without further reference to and explanation of how those factors impacted the decisions ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 596 at para 15). While Officers are not required to address every piece of evidence, contradictory evidence should not be overlooked, especially where it relates to the [NAME]’s central submissions ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1080 at para 24). The [NAME[NAME]’s evidence confirms her employment’s distinctive character, which she argues lends to the security of her employment prospects on her return to Saudi Arabia. The Officer’s discussion of Saudization is too generalized and irrelevant to the [NAME[NAME]’s circumstances. The Officer acknowledged the [NAME[NAME]’s claim that her employer “prioritizes” [NAME] but still finds the issue of Saudization relevant. [ 16 ] In two letters from her employer dated November 4, 2024, the [NAME[NAME]’s current employer in Saudi Arabia describes their role serving the [NAME], their use of a curriculum and system distinct from the Saudi Arabian national system, and their hiring mandate of only [NAME]. The Applicants argue this means the [NAME[NAME]’s work is not subject to Saudization. [ 17 ] The [NAME[NAME]’s own letter, dated November 6, 2024, refers to her Canadian employment opportunity as closely aligning with her current employment in Saudi Arabia and her desire to become more competitive in the Saudi Arabian market on her return. [ 18 ] With regard to the Officer’s reference to the “Saudization” of the job market, the Respondent argues the employer’s letter does not state that the [NAME[NAME] was granted a leave of absence to obtain work experience in Canada, or that such experience is required by her employer. The reference to rehiring the [NAME[NAME] after her stay in Canada suggests her employment would end once she left for Canada and does not confirm she would be rehired on her return as she suggests. Rather, the letter states only her return would “greatly benefit the [NAME]” , the students, staff, and overall educational environment. [ 19 ] The Applicants argue the Respondent’s explanations of the deficiencies in the [NAME[NAME]’s employer’s letter cannot be attributed to the Officer. It is not counsel’s role to substitute the reasons of the decision maker. The only reference to this letter in the Officer’s reasons is an acknowledgment that the [NAME[NAME]’s employer prioritizes hiring [NAME]. [ 20 ] The Respondent notes brief, clear, and concise justification is often sufficient for visa officers. As long as the general rationale for the decision is clear, officers are not required to make explicit reference to each and every argument made by an [NAME] ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1004 at para 40 [ [NAME] ]). Officers are presumed to have weighed and considered all evidence before them and are under no obligation to refer to every piece of evidence contrary to their findings ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2013 FC 1083 at para 34). An officer is under no duty to highlight deficiencies with the [NAME]’s submissions or request further submissions to address these weaknesses ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 955 at para 17). [ 21 ] I agree with the Respondent that visa officers are entitled to rely on their personal and professional knowledge on local conditions to assess evidence in respect of Saudization ( [NAME] at para 40). [ 22 ] As pointed out by the Applicants, this Court has addressed the issue of an [NAME]’s immigration status in Saudi Arabia and Saudization when refusing the [NAME]’s study permit application in [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 633 [ [NAME] ]. [ADDRESS] found the decision under review unreasonable because the officer did not engage with the [NAME]’s central evidence, namely the details provided confirming the security of her spouse’s employment and her employment prospects ( [NAME] at para 10). Again, as argued by the Applicants, this Court confirmed the unreasonableness of a refusal based on speculative Saudization and “economic reform” concerns despite evidence confirming the availability of the [NAME]’s current employment in Saudi Arabia upon his return from Canada ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 946 at para 7 [ [NAME] ]). [ 23 ] However, in this case, the Officer did not fail to consider the letter from the [NAME[NAME]’s employer and its content. The Officer specifically noted that “[despite] claims that employer prioritizes Pakistan [NAME] for position, employers in the [NAME] in KSA face pressure to hire [NAME] instead of expats, especially in clerical and administrative positions. Status which is tied to employment in KSA are not secured.” Thus, I find the Applicants’ reliance on [NAME] misplaced as the Officer did engage with the Applicants’ evidence and reasonably found it did not explain why employment in the [NAME] would not be subject to Saudization. [ 24 ] [APPELLANT] is also distinguishable as both the [NAME[NAME] and her husband’s jobs are subject to concerns of Saudization. In fact, the Officer’s comments regarding Saudization were directed at both the [NAME[NAME] and her husband. The [NAME[NAME] resides in Saudi Arabia as a dependent of her husband who is himself a temporary resident. The [NAME[NAME]’s husband’s employment is subject to Saudization which is relevant to her own temporary status in the country. In my view, it was not unreasonable for the Officer to note that both the [NAME[NAME] and her husband work in occupations that are subject to Saudization. [ 25 ] The Officer’s reasons account for central issues, evidence, and submissions. The [NAME] is asking this Court to reweigh and reassess the evidence which is not this Court’s role on judicial review. [ 26 ] Thus, I conclude the Officer’s reasons and conclusions about the [NAME[NAME]’s limited employment opportunities in Saudi Arabia are justified in light of the evidence on the record. [ 27 ] Secondly, regarding the issue of immigration status, the Officer was not persuaded the [NAME[NAME]’s immigration status was secure, relying on her and her husband’s employment and concerns regarding Saudization. [ 28 ] The [NAME[NAME] is a dependent of her husband who holds a valid temporary resident visa for foreign workers. They argue the Officer’s reasons do not explain how this status justifies refusing the [NAME[NAME]’s work permit and undermines her ability to leave Canada at the end of her authorized period of stay. According to the Applicants, the Officer did not engage with the [NAME[NAME]’s evidence of her immigration history, including proof of previous compliance with immigrations laws of Türkiye, Azerbaijan, and the United Arab Emirates. This renders the Decision unjustified and unintelligible. I respectfully disagree. [ 29 ] As argued by the Applicants, an officer cannot rely on an [NAME]’s immigration status outside their country of nationality to refuse their application without a meaningful assessment and justification ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1754 at para 14). This is not what the Officer has done here. [ 30 ] As pointed out by the Respondent, her own immigration status is dependent on her husband’s immigration status and employment. There is no evidence on file to demonstrate her husband’s employment would not be subject to Saudization. In these circumstances, the Officer was not limited to consider the [NAME[NAME]’s immigration status but also included her husband’s status. By doing so, the Officer conducted a thorough assessment of the [NAME]’s circumstances. [ 31 ] On the issue of the Applicants’ family ties outside Canada, the Applicants argue the Officer’s conclusions are unintelligible as the [NAME[NAME]’s husband and son will remain in Saudi Arabia and her mother and sister remain in Pakistan. The decision to bring the [NAME] to Canada was made because she requires the support and presence of her mother during this formative period of her life. The [NAME[NAME]’s son, who is also young, provides a similarly compelling reason for her return to Saudi Arabia. [ 32 ] I find the Officer’s assessment of the Applicants’ family ties to both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were considered. The [NAME[NAME] provided no evidence she maintains strong family ties with her mother and sister in Pakistan whom she has been living apart from for decades. It was reasonable for the Officer to find that the ties to Pakistan were limited. [ 33 ] Furthermore, I agree with the Respondent’s submissions that [NAME]’s arguments misconstrue the Officer’s analysis and unduly characterize each of the findings as being determinative to the exclusion of other pull factors. The Officer did not consider “only one side of the ‘push/pull’ equation” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1750 at para 19). [ 34 ] The Respondent rightly identifies the Officer’s reasons demonstrate a rational chain of analysis of several factors. Despite the Applicants’ suggestion, no one factor is determinative to the exclusion of the others in the Officer’s reasons: [NAME] and family shows limited ties to Pakistan . [NAME] and spouse earn salaries of 5.7K SAR and 11.3K SAR respectively. These salaries and the level of savings (123K SAR) are modest for a family of 4 and can be seen a s a push factor to seek better permanent opportunities in Canada. [NAME] is travelling with one child (applying for a TRV and not SP). Child will necessitate support from [NAME] as declared in application. It is not clear how [NAME] will be able to balance child caring duties and work full time in Canada. Fact that [NAME] is travelling with child and that rest of family is on temporary status in KSA , shows weak secured family ties outside Canada . [ Emphasis added] [ 35 ] The Officer reasonably assessed the family’s income, the number of family members, and how the salary and savings could be a push factor to seek permanent opportunities in Canada. I agree this assessment was directly within the Officer’s core responsibilities and was directly relevant to the Applicants’ onus to satisfy the Officer they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1586 at para 29). [ 36 ] In my view, the Applicants disagree with the Officer’s assessment of the evidence. Whether one factor outweighs another is not an issue of sufficiency of reasons, but of reweighing the evidence ( [NAME] at para 5). [ 37 ] The Officer reasonably found the Applicants did not meet their burden of demonstrating they will leave Canada at the end of their stay.

VI. Conclusion [ 38 ] The Decision complies with the requirements of justification, transparency, and intelligibility imposed by the Supreme Court in Vavilov . Therefore, this application for judicial review is dismissed. [ 39 ] Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3012-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question to be certified. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKETS: IMM-3012-25 IMM-3013-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT], ET AL. v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: [NAME] OF HEARING: JUNE 2, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME]. DATED: JUNE 3, 2026 APPEARANCES : [RESPONDENT] For The ApplicantS [RESPONDENT] For The RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [RESPONDENT] (Ontario) For The ApplicantS Attorney General of Canada Toronto (Ontario) For The RESPONDENT