Federal Court Rejects Work Permit Refusal Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260616 Docket: IMM-22053-24 Citation: 2026 FC 806 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 pursuant to a Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA]. [ 2 ] For the following reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

II.

BACKGROUND A. Facts [ 3 ] The Applicant, [APPELLANT], is a 32-year-old farmer from Kaunke Kalan in Punjab, India. [ 4 ] On July 28, 2023, [COMPANY]., located in Abbotsford, British Columbia, received a positive LMIA for two general farm worker positions. [ 5 ] Mr. [APPELLANT] applied for a position as a Farm Labourer with [APPELLANT]., and on August 15, 2023, the Applicant received an offer of employment for a 24-month term. [ 6 ] On or about August 16, 2023, Mr. [APPELLANT] applied for a Canadian work permit. B. Procedural History [ 7 ] Mr. [APPELLANT]’s work permit application was first denied on November 21, 2023. Mr. [APPELLANT] sought judicial review of this refusal, and on July 3, 2024, he accepted an offer by [NAME] to set aside the decision and have his application reviewed by a different officer. As part of the redetermination, Mr. [APPELLANT] provided additional supporting documents. [ 8 ] On September 20, 2024, [NAME] again refused Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application. This refusal is the decision currently under review. [ 9 ] In rejecting the application, the visa officer was not satisfied that Mr. [APPELLANT] would leave Canada at the end of his stay because: 1) he has significant family ties in Canada; 2) the purpose of his visit is not consistent with a temporary stay; and 3) his employment situation does not show that he is financially established in his country of residence. [ 10 ] In notes entered into [NAME]’s [NAME] [[NAME]], the officer cited the following specific concerns about Mr. [APPELLANT]’s application:

1. The source of a large deposit into Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [COMPANY] [NAME] in August 2024, shortly before he submitted his application for redetermination, was unclear, and Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [COMPANY] balance had modest-low funds prior to this deposit.

2. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [COMPANY] [NAME] showed many self deposits and cash deposits.

3. Despite documents showing significant agricultural sales, there was no evidence of the associated amounts being deposited into Mr. [APPELLANT]’s [COMPANY] [NAME].

4. Mr. [APPELLANT]’s two siblings live in Canada.

5. The officer found that because Mr. [APPELLANT] had limited education, is involved in farming in India, and has a modest income, he is not well established in India.

III. ANALYSIS [ 11 ] The standard of review for the majority of the issues raised by the Applicant is reasonableness. [NAME] have wide discretion in their assessment of an application, and the Court will generally adopt a position of deference in relation to these decisions. Nevertheless, an officer’s reasons must be justified, transparent, and intelligible. They must also be “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” that is justified in relation to the facts and relevant law: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 85, 99 [ [NAME] ], [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 30 at para 9. [ 12 ] The Applicant also argues that the officer in this matter breached principles of fairness by failing to provide him with an opportunity to respond to his concerns. This argument is assessed on a standard akin to correctness: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at para 54. [ 13 ] Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, I am satisfied that the officer’s determination was both fair and reasonable. In arriving at this conclusion, I find that the Applicant’s arguments collectively amount to a request that I reweigh the evidence that was before the officer. It is trite that this is not the role of the court on judicial review. [ 14 ] The finding that the Applicant was not financially established in India was supported by the evidence. As the Respondent notes, this Court has found on numerous occasions that evidence of personal assets and employment income are appropriate and reasonable factors to consider when assessing whether an Applicant will leave Canada at the end of their stay: [APPELLANT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 1107. In this case, the Applicant’s financial evidence was mixed, and I have no basis on which to conclude that the officer’s appreciation of this evidence was unreasonable. To find otherwise would require me to ‘weigh in’ on the officer’s assessment of that evidence. [ 15 ] In the circumstances, the officer was also not obliged to provide the Applicant with notice that they would be considering the large deposit that he made just before the visa application was submitted. This information was contained in the Applicant’s own application, and it was entirely foreseeable that this would be of concern to a visa officer. As such, the opportunity for the Applicant to address the apparent concerns with this large deposit was with his original application, or in follow up submissions following the redetermination of this matter. [ 16 ] Having said this, I do agree with the Applicant that it was largely irrelevant for the officer to point out that many of the deposits to his [COMPANY] [NAME] were “self/cash” deposits. As the Applicant points out, cash deposits and deposits made by an [NAME] may be entirely normal, based on that individual’s occupation and financial activity. [ 17 ] Nevertheless, I do not consider this to be a reviewable error on the part of the officer. It represents a minor observation in the officer’s assessment and, as the Supreme Court of Canada noted in [NAME] , judicial review is not intended to be a “treasure hunt” for minor errors: [NAME] at para 102. [ 18 ] I am also convinced that it was not an irrelevant consideration for the officer to note the Applicant’s significant family ties in Canada. While it would be of concern if this were the sole basis for rejecting the Applicant’s application, the officer’s reasons clearly demonstrate this was simply one of several factors, all of which suggested that the Applicant may not leave Canada at the end of his authorized period of stay, as required by paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations .

IV.

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

JUDGMENT in IMM-22053-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. No costs. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-22053-24 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 14, 2025, AND DECEMBER 16, 2025.

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 16, 2026 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY : [APPELLANT] For The Applicant [COUNSEL] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Alberta For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Saskatoon, Saskatchewan For The Respondent