Federal Court Overturns Unreasonable Decision on Work Permit Application

OUTCOME: Allowed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-22568-24 Citation: 2026 FC 807 Toronto, Ontario, June 16, 2026 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice A. [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. OVERVIEW [ 1 ] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision by an [NAME] [[NAME]] officer to refuse his application for a work permit. [ 2 ] For the brief reasons that follow, I will [NAME] this application for judicial review.

II.

BACKGROUND A. Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant, Dr. [APPELLANT], lives in Tehran, Iran with his parents and sister. He is currently a political science research fellow at [COMPANY] [[NAME]], which is the same institution where he completed his master’s degree and PhD. He also works as a Senior Foreign Trade Expert for [COMPANY]. [ 4 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] completed some of his doctoral studies in Canada. He was a visiting scholar at the [COMPANY] from 2016 to 2017 and completed an internship as a visiting student researcher at the [COMPANY] from August 2018 to December 2020. [ 5 ] In April 2020, while he was studying at the [COMPANY], Dr. [APPELLANT] filed a refugee claim. However, he subsequently left Canada in November 2020 and formally withdrew his refugee claim on May 12, 2021. In the visa application that is the subject of this judicial review, Dr. [APPELLANT] explained that he initiated the claim because of the stress he was experiencing related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the growing restrictions that he was facing. However, he soon regretted this decision, and he affirmed in the visa application that he is not at risk of persecution in Iran. [ 6 ] In 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] was offered a post-doctoral fellowship in the Department of Political Science at [COMPANY] in Ottawa, to complete a research project dealing with immigration and migration policy and higher education. [NAME] is supportive of Dr. [APPELLANT] pursuing this opportunity and has agreed to provide a [NAME] to assist with his living expenses in Canada. B. Procedural History [ 7 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] applied for a Canadian work permit in June 2023 in order to pursue the post-doctoral fellowship at [NAME]. That application was the subject of a mandamus application, and it was eventually refused. The Applicant sought judicial review of that refusal but later accepted a pre-hearing settlement offer from the Minister to have his application sent back for redetermination with additional supporting documents. C. Decision Under Review [ 8 ] On November 23, 2024, [NAME] once again refused Dr. [APPELLANT]’s work permit application. The officer was not satisfied that Dr. [APPELLANT] would leave Canada at the end of his stay for two briefly articulated reasons. First, the officer found that the purpose of Dr. [APPELLANT]’s visit was not consistent with a temporary stay. Second, the officer relied on the fact that, on a past visit to Canada, he did not comply with all conditions outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations [IRPR] or on his previous Canadian immigration document. [ 9 ] The officer’s notes, as recorded in [NAME]’s Global Case Management System [GCMS], provide little further detail. Indeed, the only aspect of those notes that could be considered as a reason for the officer’s decision is as follows: it is not clear how post doc fellowsip [sic] in Canada in the field of migration is going to contribute to his life in Iran. It is also not very clear from this submission as to why he claimed refugee status or that why he would not attempt to do so again. His explanation is vague and general. On a past visit to Canada the applicant did not comply with all conditions outlined in R183 of the IRPR or written on their previous Canadian Immigration document.

III. ANALYSIS [ 10 ] The Applicant argues that the officer in this matter breached procedural fairness in rejecting his application and, alternatively, that the decision under review is unreasonable. [ 11 ] In developing the above arguments, counsel [NAME] failed to identify any concerns that would establish a breach of procedural fairness. However, I am convinced that the decision under review is unreasonable for reasons that I shall set out briefly below. [ 12 ] In arriving at this conclusion, I recognize that the reasonableness standard in this context does not require decisions to be lengthy or detailed. They must, however, show a genuine engagement with the situation of the applicant. The officer’s reasoning, furthermore, must be both responsive to the applicant’s evidence and rational in its analysis: [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 1302 at para 16; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 395 at para 7. [ 13 ] There are three reasons why the decision under review is unreasonable. [ 14 ] First, it is both evident from the record and a matter of common sense that the offer of a post-doctoral fellowship at [COMPANY] was going to be beneficial [NAME]’s career. Dr. [APPELLANT] is a research fellow at [NAME]. He is not yet a professor at that university but in his visa application he clearly articulated that becoming a university professor was his goal. This being the case, I fail to understand how the officer could conclude that the offer of a post-doctoral fellowship at a reputable Canadian university would not “contribute to his life in Iran.” [ 15 ] Moreover, the record reveals that Dr. [APPELLANT]’s home institution, [NAME], had agreed to pay his salary while he completed the post-doctoral fellowship at [NAME]. It is only reasonable to assume that if [NAME] was willing to pay Dr. [APPELLANT] to complete this program, it considered this program to be of considerable benefit to both the institution and Dr. [APPELLANT]’s career. The officer ought to have considered this important aspect of Dr. [APPELLANT]’s application. [ 16 ] Second, in his application, Dr. [APPELLANT] described in detail how the relatively recent death of his father had added to his familial responsibilities in Iran. In particular, the Applicant described that, as the only son in the family, he is now responsible for managing the family’s agricultural lands, which require him to oversee activities such as irrigation and harvesting. While this fact alone may not have been sufficient to establish that Dr. [APPELLANT] would return to Iran at the end of an authorized period of stay in Canada, it was unreasonable for the officer to simply ignore this aspect of the application. [ 17 ] Finally, it is unclear from the record how, precisely, the officer concluded that Dr. [APPELLANT] had previously failed to comply with the conditions outlined in section 183 of the IRPR, or those conditions outlined in his Canadian immigration document. It is true that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. [APPELLANT] initiated a claim for refugee protection in Canada. It is also true that he withdrew this claim shortly after he submitted it, recognizing that he was not (or was no longer) at risk of persecution. [ 18 ] From the record before me, I see no barrier within the terms of section 183 itself that would have prevented Dr. [APPELLANT] from initiating a refugee claim in Canada. It may well be that Dr. [APPELLANT] remained in Canada beyond the length of his previous visa, but this extended stay may well have been authorized pending the outcome of his claim for refugee protection. It may also be that there are other ways in which Dr. [APPELLANT] failed to comply with section 183 of the IRPR, but these cannot be discerned from the officer’s reasons. To be clear, Dr. [APPELLANT]’s previous refugee claim was certainly a relevant, and important, factor in assessing his current visa application. A reasonable consideration of section 183 of the IRPR, however, must clearly set out how Dr. [APPELLANT]’s immigration history revealed a failure to comply with the provision.

IV.

CONCLUSION [ 19 ] For the reasons set out above, this application for judicial review is granted. The parties did not propose a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.

JUDGMENT in IMM-22568-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is granted. The matter is remitted to a new officer for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons. There is no question for certification. No costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-22568-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CONSIDERED IN WRITING AT TORONTO, ONTARIO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH JOINT REQUEST BY THE PARTIES DATED DECEMBER 19, 2025.

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 16, 2026 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : [APPELLANT] E. [APPELLANT] [NAME] [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COUNSEL] E. [COUNSEL] and Solicitor Ottawa, [NAME] of Canada Ottawa, Ontario For The Respondent