Federal Court Rejects Work Permit Application Judicial Review

Date: 20260522 [NAME] : IMM-6797-25 Citation: 2026 FC 659 Toronto, Ontario , May 22, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On this judicial review, the Applicant argues that the Immigration Officer’s refusal of his work permit application is unreasonable. [ 2 ] Mr. [NAME] is a citizen of India, who has worked as a self-employed taxi driver since 2009. He applied for a work permit in Canada as a general farm worker. He has no work experience or training in agriculture. His application was refused.

I. Analysis [ 3 ] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable because: (1) it failed to account for the evidence that he could perform the work; and (2) the National Occupation Classification (NOC) for general farm workers and the [NAME]) did not require previous experience or training. [ 4 ] First, the Applicant claims that the Officer failed to consider evidence that he could perform the work sought. He points to statements in his Affidavit and the supporting letter from the [NAME]. [ 5 ] The relevant portions of his Affidavit state:

9. That I am living in Punjab which is known as India’s breadbasket as it is one of the major agricultural states of India.

10. That I have seen people working on farms around me since my childhood and I am aware of their job roles and responsibilities. [ 6 ] Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, the general statements in his Affidavit do not demonstrate that he has any experience with agriculture work or farm machinery. His statements merely indicate that he is generally aware of the roles and responsibilities of agriculture workers. [ 7 ] This is contrasted against the letter from the [NAME], which states: … We have done an extensive interview with him on phone and found him to have the required skills, knowledge of usage of tractors, he is very much familiar with farming and tractors, and he has the right attitude towards work. From the interview we had with [NAME], he has shown to possess good knowledge on operating farm machinery and driving tractors as he is already driving his own taxi since 2009, In addition, he has the required knowledge about harvesting timings and farm procedures as well as right motivation to work on farms. [ 8 ] The statements in this letter indicate that the [NAME], following the phone interview, understood that the Applicant had “skills, knowledge and usage of tractors” and “good knowledge on operating farm machinery.” The Officer noted this letter but found that it lacked any corroboration. I would note that it is not corroborated by the Applicant’s own statements in his Affidavit. [ 9 ] In any event, it was open to the Officer to weigh this evidence and find it insufficient to establish that the Applicant can perform the work sought. [ADDRESS], on judicial review, cannot reweigh evidence considered by the Officer. [ 10 ] The Applicant further submits that the Officer erred by imposing requirements for the farm labourer position that are not reflected in the NOC. In particular, the Applicant emphasizes that neither the LMIA nor the NOC for general farm workers prescribes any specific educational qualifications or training. The Applicant therefore contends that the Officer, in effect, introduced an experience requirement. [ 11 ] Despite this being a labourer job not requiring any experience, “[NAME] are required to independently assess and exercise their discretion in determining whether an applicant is able to perform the work sought; they are not bound by the requirements set out by employers, [NAME], or [NAME]” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2024 FC 792 at para 18 [ [NAME] ]). Officers may therefore require some basic farming knowledge or experience in assessing whether an applicant can perform the work sought ( [NAME] at para 18). [ 12 ] In this case, it was reasonable for the Officer to independently assess whether the Applicant could perform the proposed work. In doing so, the Officer considered the Applicant’s lack of experience operating tractors and other farm equipment, which was a relevant factor given the nature of the position. [ 13 ] The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision lacked transparency, justification, or intelligibility, or was beyond a range of possible, acceptable outcomes based on the relevant facts and law. This judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

II. Conclusion [ 14 ] This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-6797-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-6797-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v mci HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: april 22, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: May 22, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANT [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT