Federal Court Rejects Work Permit Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260619 Docket: IMM-22197-24 Citation: 2026 FC 837 Toronto, Ontario, June 19, 2026 PRESENT: The [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 of an [NAME] [[NAME]] Abu Dhabi visa officer [Officer], dated October 18, 2024, refusing their application for an open work permit under the [NAME]. The work permit application was submitted following the Applicant’s receipt of their [NAME] entrepreneur stream [[NAME]] Entrepreneur Approval Letter. The Officer refused the application pursuant the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [Act] and paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [Regulations]. The Officer held, among other reasons, that they were not satisfied that the Applicant had provided complete and truthful information in their application, or that they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. [ 2 ] The Applicant alleges that the [NAME] decision [Decision] is unreasonable for three primary reasons. First, though the Officer refused the work permit as they were not satisfied she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay, they did not consider her permissible dual intent to seek permanent residence status. Further to this, the Applicant asserts that the [NAME] itself necessarily contemplates permanent residence status for its applicants. Second, the Officer myopically focused on her failure to disclose a series of previous work visa refusals. Third, the Officer failed to provide responsive reasons which addressed the arguments and countervailing evidence that had been submitted in relation to her lack of ties outside of Canada and lack of status in the United Arab Emirates [UAE]. Finally, they also assert that it was procedurally unfair for the Officer not to have given her a chance to respond to what she claims to be the Officer’s veiled concerns with the Applicant’s credibility. [ 3 ] For the following reasons, the application is dismissed. The Applicant has not established Decision to be unreasonable or procedurally unfair.

II. Background [ 4 ] The Applicant is a citizen of India and a resident of the UAE, who owns a [NAME] with locations in India, [NAME]. On February 2, 2023, she sought a provincial nomination to start a jewelry enterprise in [NAME] by submitting an Entrepreneur class [NAME] application. [ 5 ] On April 25, 2023, as part of the [NAME], the Applicant signed a Business Performance Agreement, in order for the [NAME] to issue a Temporary Work Permit Support Letter. This was done on May 21, 2024, with that letter pledging support for the temporary establishment of the Applicant in [NAME] for a period of up to two years “to enable the applicant to complete the mandatory steps and meet [NAME]’s requirements in order to receive their confirmation of nomination.” The date of expiry of the approval was August 20, 2024. [ 6 ] On February 19, 2024, the Applicant submitted a signed IMM 5802 form requesting an exemption under paragraph 204(c) of the Regulations and the Labour Market Impact Assessment Exemption Code T13. Included in the application were supporting documents and a copy of their business plan citing Exemption Code C60. On March 21, 2024, [NAME] confirmed receipt of the IMM 5802 and informed the Applicant they could now submit a work permit application. This work permit application [Application], in turn, was received by [NAME] on April 17, 2024. [ 7 ] By letter dated October 18, 2024, the Officer refused the Application. The Officer was not satisfied the Applicant would leave at the end of their temporary stay, based on the following factors: (1) the Applicant’s immigration status outside her country of nationality or habitual residence; (2) the purpose of her visit to Canada was not consistent with a temporary stay, given the details provided in the Application; (3) the Applicant did not have significant family ties outside of Canada; and (4) the Officer was not satisfied that they had truthfully answered all the questions asked of them. [ 8 ] The Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, which form part of the reasons ( [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) at para 44), read in their entirety: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant does not have significant family ties outside Canada. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. The applicant appears highly motivated to gain entry to Canada; she has applied for and been refused a work permit on three occasions. Applicant has again applied for a work permit but under a different category. Categories cited: A77, C11, C41, C60, T13. Given this history, I am not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada when required to do so. Applicant has declared her TRV approvals in the statutory declaration questions but has not declared her refusals. On balance, I am not satisfied the applicant has provided complete and or truthful information in their application. Based on the applicant's immigration status outside of their country of nationality or habitual residence, I am not satisfied that they will leave Canada at the end of their stay as a temporary resident. The applicant is a temporary worker with temporary status that must be renewed every 2 or 3 years. This status is directly tied to employment and will be cancelled when an employee resigns or otherwise leaves the UAE. Going to Canada would cause their ties to the UAE to be completely severed, meanwhile they have demonstrated only limited ties to their country of citizenship. Weighing the factors in this application. I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application. [ 9 ] The Applicant now seeks judicial review of this Decision.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 10 ] The issues at play in this matter are whether the Decision is reasonable and procedurally fair. [ 11 ] With respect to the former, the role of a court in reviewing a decision of an administrative decision maker 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 paras 85, 101 [ [NAME] ]; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 SCC 21 at para 64). Although the party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable, the reviewing court must assess “whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency and intelligibility” ( [NAME] at paras 99 and 100). [ 12 ] On the question of procedural fairness, such issues are reviewed on a correctness standard, or at least a standard akin to correctness ( [COMPANY] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 [ [COMPANY] ] at paras 54 – 56; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2023 FC 1029 at para 41). This requires the court to analyze whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FC 936 at para 13, citing [COMPANY] at para 54). The reviewing court thus determines whether the applicant “knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond” ( [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2025 FCA 97 at para 5 citing [COMPANY] at para 56).

IV. Legal Framework [ 13 ] The criteria for a permanent resident visa under a [NAME], such as the [NAME], are found in Section 87 of the Regulations, reproduced in part below: Class 87 (1) For the purposes of subsection 12(2) of the Act, the provincial nominee class is hereby prescribed as a class of persons who may become permanent residents on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada. Member of the class (2) A [NAME] is a member of the provincial nominee class if (a) subject to subsection (5), they are named in a nomination certificate issued by the government of a [NAME] under a provincial nomination agreement between that [NAME] and the Minister; and (b) they intend to reside in the [NAME] that has nominated them. […] [Emphasis added.] Catégorie 87 (1) Pour l’application du paragraphe 12(2) de la Loi, la catégorie des candidats des provinces est une catégorie réglementaire de personnes qui peuvent devenir résidents permanents du fait de leur capacité à réussir leur établissement économique au Canada. Qualité (2) Sous réserve du paragraphe (5), fait partie de la catégorie des candidats des provinces [NAME] visé par un certificat de désignation qui satisfait aux critères suivants : a) il est délivré par le gouvernement provincial concerné conformément à la version en vigueur, au moment de la désignation , de l’accord concernant les candidats des provinces que la [NAME] en cause a conclu avec le ministre; b) il est établi en fonction des critères de sélection de la [NAME] approuvés par écrit par le ministre; [Je souligne.] [ 14 ] A work permit, such as that contemplated by the [NAME], may be issued under section 200 pursuant to paragraphs 204(c) or 205(a) of the Regulations: Agreements or arrangements 204 A work permit may be issued under section 200 to a [NAME] who intends to perform work under […] (c) an agreement entered into by the Minister with a [NAME] or group of provinces under subsection 8(1) of the Act; or […] Accords ou ententes 204 Un permis de travail peut être délivré à [NAME] en application de l’article 200 si le travail pour lequel le permis est demandé est visé par : […] c) un accord conclu entre le ministre et une [NAME] ou un groupe de provinces en vertu du paragraphe 8(1) de la Loi; […] Canadian interests 205 A work permit may be issued under section 200 to a [NAME] who intends to perform work that (a) would create or maintain significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents; Intérêts canadiens 205 Un permis de travail peut être délivré à [NAME] en vertu de l’article 200 si le travail pour lequel le permis est demandé satisfait à l’une ou l’autre des conditions suivantes : a) il permet de créer ou de conserver des débouchés ou des avantages sociaux, culturels ou économiques pour les citoyens canadiens ou les résidents permanents; [ 15 ] The requirements for work permit applications from outside of Canada are set out in section 200 of the Regulations, with paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Regulations being of particular relevance in this matter: Work permits 200 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) — and, in respect of a [NAME] who makes an application for a work permit before entering Canada, subject to section 87.3 of the Act — an officer shall issue a work permit to a [NAME] if, following an examination, it is established that […] (b) the [NAME] will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9; [Emphasis added.] Permis de travail — demande préalable à l’entrée au Canada 200 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), et de l’article 87.3 de la Loi dans le cas de [NAME] qui fait la demande préalablement à son entrée au Canada, l’agent délivre un permis de travail à [NAME] si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments ci-après sont établis : […] b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la partie 9; [Je souligne.] [ 16 ] Dual intent, which acknowledges that an applicant may apply for temporary residence even where they have an intention to become a permanent resident, is prescribed in subsection 22(2) of Act: Temporary resident 22 (1) A [NAME] becomes a temporary resident if an officer is satisfied that the [NAME] has applied for that status, has met the obligations set out in paragraph 20(1)(b), is not inadmissible and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1). Dual intent (2) An intention by a [NAME] to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. Résident temporaire 22 (1) Devient résident temporaire [NAME] dont l’agent constate qu’il a demandé ce statut, s’est déchargé des obligations prévues à l’alinéa 20(1)b), n’est pas interdit de territoire et ne fait pas l’objet d’une déclaration visée au paragraphe 22.1(1). Double intention (2) L’intention qu’il a de s’établir au Canada n’empêche pas [NAME] de devenir résident temporaire sur preuve qu’il aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée. [ 17 ] Finally, the provision requiring that applicants must answer all questions put to them for the purposes of examination truthfully is found in subsection 16(1) of the Act: Obligation — answer truthfully 16 (1) A person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination and must produce a visa and all relevant evidence and documents that the officer reasonably requires. Obligation du [NAME] 16 (1) L’auteur d’une demande au titre de la présente loi doit répondre véridiquement aux questions qui lui sont posées lors du contrôle, donner les renseignements et tous éléments de preuve pertinents et présenter les visa et documents requis.

V. Analysis A. The Applicant has not established the Decision to be unreasonable (1) Applicant’s Submissions [ 18 ] The Applicant argues that it was unreasonable, and indeed absurd, for the Officer to refuse a work permit application due to their supposed intention to overstay in Canada. They note that permanent residence status is effectively contemplated by the [NAME], and that the Act further specifically holds that a dual intent to become a permanent resident does not preclude a [NAME] from becoming a temporary resident. In particular, the Applicant submits that the purpose of the Application was to allow the Applicant to enter Canada, establish a business in Canada and then apply for permanent residence, so the Officer erred in failing to consider this context of the [NAME] before refusing the application under paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Regulations. In support of this position, the Applicant relies on [APPELLANT] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2022 FC 1130 and [NAME] v (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 411, cases involving [NAME] work permit applications, as well as [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1210. [ 19 ] The Applicant further submits that the Officer failed to provide sufficient reasoning or explanation in support of the determination that they would not depart Canada at the end of their authorized stay. The Applicant asserts that the Officer failed to support their finding that the purpose of the visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay, and states that there was contradictory evidence on the record which went unaddressed by the Officer. With respect to the issue of lack of ties, the Applicant submits that the Officer ignored evidence before them that the Applicant had established businesses in several countries, and that this was her intention for applying to the [NAME]: “The same reasoning applies to her lack of status in the UAE. The applicant had ties to her home country as she had an established business. The finding that she had no ties elsewhere was unreasonable.” [ 20 ] The Applicant also provided arguments responding to the Officer’s finding that the Applicant had failed to provide complete and truthful information in their application, since she had failed to disclose previous work permit application refusals, contrary to the requirements of the application form. With respect to this, the Applicant argues that this was not a misrepresentation, because those previous refusals had been mentioned elsewhere in her Application, as reference had been made to them in a supporting letter. The Applicant therefore argues that this ground of the Decision was also in error as it was not responsive to the evidence that had been provided. The Applicant also submits that the Officer focused on her three previous visa refusals, but did not consider that she now had an approval from [NAME]. The Applicant further argues that this issue was immaterial, in any event, as the determinative issue in the Decision was not the omission, but rather that the Application had been refused on the basis that the Officer was not satisfied she would depart Canada at the end of the authorized period. (2) Respondent’s Submissions [ 21 ] For its part, the Respondent argues that the issues with the Applicant’s application form are clear. They point out that not only did the Applicant fail to list her multiple previous work permit rejections, in contravention of the form’s instructions, but rather in that section of the form she had specifically and deceptively only included mention of successful temporary resident visa [TRV] approvals that she had been granted in the past. The Respondent argues that the Officer’s determination that they were not satisfied that the Applicant had provided complete and truthful information in the Application was therefore clearly reasonable and the Applicant’s failure to answer truthfully was determinative of the Application, given her duty of candour to do so and to answer accurately ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FCA 169 at para 17; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 226 at para 15). [ 22 ] The Respondent further argues that s 22(2) makes clear that while a dual intent is permissible, this is only so where an officer is satisfied that the party will leave Canada at the end of their authorized period. The Respondent therefore submits that the Applicant was required to demonstrate their capacity and intent to leave Canada at the end of their temporary stay in accordance with paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Regulations, regardless of their dual intent. They assert that the Decision establishes that the Officer was not satisfied this had been done, given the Applicant’s failure to provide complete and truthful information in their application. [ 23 ] They also assert that though the Officer was concerned the Applicant would not depart Canada at the end of the authorized period, it is not correct that the Officer had failed to consider this was an application through the [NAME], or to realize that [NAME] envisioned that its applicants would eventually become permanent residents. The Respondent notes that while the Decision does not list the [NAME] by name or overtly discuss it, it does specifically cite the category code for the [NAME], indicating that the Officer knew of, and had considered the [NAME]. The Respondent also asserts that contrary to the framing of the Applicant, there was no evidence that the Applicant had actually secured a [NAME] nomination, but rather that they had only been granted a letter of support from [NAME] for the temporary establishment of the Applicant for a period of up to two years “to enable the applicant to complete the mandatory steps and meet [NAME]’s requirements in order to receive their conversation of nomination.” That is, the Respondent clarifies that the Applicant does not yet have a provincial nomination, but rather only support from the [NAME] to obtain a two-year work permit, in order for them to then seek to meet the other requirements to secure that nomination. As such, the Applicant is not a member of the provincial nominee class. [ 24 ] Finally, the Respondent argued that the Officer’s findings that the Applicant lacked ties elsewhere were reasonable, given that: there was no evidence that if she left the UAE her business there would continue, the UAE business licence had expired in January 2023, and her employment letter from the UAE seemed to indicate that she was merely an employee there. They also noted that as the evidence pertaining to the Applicant’s husband indicated he would join her in Canada, her spouse did not provide ties to India, as claimed. The Respondent submits that the Applicant merely seeks to have the Court reweigh the evidence of her business ties outside of Canada, and that it was reasonably open to the Officer to have concluded that due to the particular visa she holds in the UAE, her ties and her ability to operate her business there would be severed if she left. (3) Determination [ 25 ] I do not find the Decision to be unreasonable. [ 26 ] A review of the record indicates that the Applicant did indeed fail to include her three previous work permit refusals on her application form, and instead stated only that she had previously been successfully approved for certain TRVs. I am not persuaded by the Applicant’s contention that the Officer’s resulting finding that they were thus not satisfied that the Applicant had provided complete and truthful information in their application was unreasonable, because elsewhere in the Application there had been oblique mention of the work permit refusals. [ 27 ] First, I note that the Applicant had not merely failed to mention the work permit refusals in section 2 of the “Background Information” section of her work permit application form, but instead had directly denied having ever been refused visas in section 2b). That section asks, “Have you ever been refused a visa or permit, denied entry or ordered to leave Canada or any other country or territory?” , to which the Applicant specifically responded “No” . Then, in the subsequent section 2d) where details were to be provided for the answers in section 2, the Applicant went on to outline only that she had previously successfully applied for visitor visas and had been granted multiple TRV visas for over the last 10 years, without including any reference to the work permit denials. Second, a review of the submissions letter accompanying the Application that mentions the denied work permits establishes that this letter did so only in passing (and in the context of arguing against one of the previous denials), and further that it also does not include mention of one of the work permit denials at all. Given all of this, I agree with the Respondent that the Officer’s finding that they were not satisfied that the Applicant had provided complete and truthful information in their application was intelligible, transparent, and justifiable. I do not find that determination to be unreasonable. [ 28 ] I also do not agree that the omissions and arguable misrepresentations in the Application were immaterial, since the Decision had instead turned on the Officer’s concern that the Applicant would not depart Canada at the end of their authorized period of stay. In fact, the Decision letter specifically lists as a ground of refusal the Officer not being satisfied that the Applicant had “truthfully answered all questions asked” , in addition to other concerns such as departing at the end of their authorized stay. Further, while the Officer’s GCMS notes are not expansive or particularly well-organized, the notes clearly set out a number of different issues of concern, which include the completeness and truthfulness of the Application information, as well as a lack of family ties outside of Canada, her employment status in the UAE, concerns that she would overstay, and the purpose of the Applicant’s visit being inconsistent with a temporary stay. The GCMS notes state that for all of those reasons, the Application was refused. I further do not find that the Officer failed to provide sufficient reasoning or explanation in support of the determination that the Applicant would not depart Canada at the end of their authorized stay or why they had demonstrated only limited ties outside of Canada. [ 29 ] Next, I cannot agree with the Applicant’s argument that it was absurd for the Officer to refuse their application on the ground of not being satisfied they would leave Canada, since permanent residence status is effectively contemplated by the [NAME] [NAME], and that the Act specifically allows dual intent. As the Respondent pointed out, the Applicant has not actually secured a [NAME] nomination, but rather only a letter of support for the work permit to allow her to continue to seek that nomination. The distinction between a [NAME] support letter and the nomination certificate has been discussed by my colleague Justice McDonald in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1002 at paras 14 to 16: [14] However, this submission fails to acknowledge the distinction between a [NAME] support letter and nomination certificate under the [NAME]. A nomination certificate, as defined in the Business Performance Agreement between the Applicant and the [NAME], is a certificate “which indicates that the [NAME] has nominated the Applicant to be a Permanent Resident”, and is only issued after verification by the [NAME] that the Applicant has satisfied the obligations in the Performance Agreement. [15] Here the Applicant only had a [NAME] support letter and while an Officer is required to acknowledge and consider a support letter, there is no requirement for the Officer to agree with it ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 633 at para 68). [16] In any event, the [NAME] approval was contingent upon her obtaining a work permit, and the support letter itself indicates that it “does not guarantee approval of your application by [NAME] for a TWP or for Permanent Residence status in Canada.” The Officer explicitly acknowledged the [NAME] support letter, and found that it alone was insufficient to carry her work permit application. [ 30 ] Equally important however, s 22 of the Act is clear in establishing that a dual intent will not preclude temporary residence only in cases where the Officer finds that party would depart by the end of their authorized stay ( [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2017 FC 768 at para 13; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 84; [NAME] v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 3 (CanLII), at para 18). This requirement is also echoed in the publicly available [NAME] “Provincial business candidates or Quebec self-employed applicants approved for a Quebec selection certificate seeking eventual permanent residence – [R205(a) – C60] – Canadian interests – [NAME]” , which states: Although applicants may have a dual intent to seek status as temporary workers and eventually as permanent residents, as per paragraph R200(1)(b), they must always satisfy the officer that they will leave Canada at the end of the temporary period authorized under section R185 . The applicant must be able to demonstrate that they maintain the capacity and willingness to leave Canada should their employment end or they fail to obtain permanent residence. [Emphasis added.] Bien que les demandeurs puissent avoir la double intention d’obtenir le statut de travailleur temporaire et, plus tard, d’obtenir celui de résident permanent, aux termes de l’alinéa 200(1)b) du RIPR, ils doivent toujours convaincre l’agent qu’ils quitteront le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour temporaire autorisée aux termes de l’article 185 du RIPR . Le [NAME] doit être en mesure de démontrer qu’il conserve la capacité et la volonté de quitter le Canada en cas de cessation d’emploi ou de refus de la résidence permanente. [Je souligne.] [ 31 ] Again, subsection 22(2) of the Act reads as follows, in setting out this contingency: Dual intent 22 (2) An intention by a [NAME] to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay . [Emphasis added] Double intention 22 (2) L’intention qu’il a de s’établir au Canada n’empêche pas [NAME] de devenir résident temporaire sur preuve qu’il aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée . [Je souligne.] [ 32 ] Here, given the identified concerns about the truthfulness and completeness of the Application, along with the other reasons as to why the Officer was not satisfied the Applicant would depart as required, this was reasonably found not to be the case. It also cannot be said that the Officer was unaware of the context that the Applicant had applied through the [NAME], and that [NAME]’s envisioning eventual permanent residence for its applicants, as the Decision makes direct reference to the [NAME] code for that initiative, indicating there was awareness of the [NAME] involved. [ 33 ] In sum, I do not find that the Applicant has established the Decision to lack transparency, intelligibility or justifiability, and that it is unreasonable. B. The Decision was not procedurally unfair [ 34 ] I also do not find that it has been established that the Decision was procedurally unfair. [ 35 ] The Applicant essentially submits that the Officer made a credibility finding with regard to the Applicant’s stated intentions and truthfulness in the Application, but failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to their specific concerns, and that this occasioned a breach of procedural fairness. The Applicant cites several cases in support of this contention, including [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 1175 at paras 9 and 16; [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) (1999), 170 FTR 129 (Fed TD) at para 18; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 550; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2020 FC 77 at para 10). The Applicant submits that “[t]here is no doubt that the officer had credibility concerns as it is the basis for the decision. As such the officer was required to provide an actual opportunity to address the concerns by setting out the specific concerns and giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.” [ 36 ] I disagree. Upon consideration of the Applicant’s inaccurate assertion that they had never been refused a visa, the Officer reasonably declared they were not satisfied the Applicant had provided complete and truthful information in their application form. This is a finding as to the Applicant’s failure to make complete disclosure in the Application that went to the sufficiency of the Application. Concerns with the sufficiency, adequacy or completeness of an application do not give rise to a duty to alert together with the opportunity to respond ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1186 at para 26 citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2018 FC 1037 at paras 39-41). In addition, there is no procedural fairness requirement that applicants must be alerted and given the chance to respond to weaknesses and contradictions that arise from the materials that they themselves have provided ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2017 FC 1183 at para 29, citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2010 FC 665 ). It is an applicant’s responsibility to put their best case forward ( [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 703 at para 35 citing [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2011 FC 1247 at para 83-85; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 1184 at paras 22-23).

VI. Conclusion [ 37 ] As the Applicant has not discharged their onus of showing the Decision to be unreasonable or procedurally unfair, the application is dismissed. [ 38 ] The parties have not proposed any question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the Act, and I agree that none arises. [ 39 ] No costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT in IMM-22197-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review application is dismissed. No question of general importance is certified. No costs are awarded. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-22197-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: October 9, 2025 reasons and judgment: [NAME] j. DATED: june 19, 2026 APPEARANCES : [COUNSEL] For The Applicant [APPELLANT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent