Federal Court Upholds Refusal of Temporary Work Permits and Visas

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260610 Docket: IMM-3753-25 Citation: 2026 FC 773 Ottawa, Ontario, June 10, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of an officer with [NAME], [NAME] (the “Officer” ), dated January 23, 2025, refusing the [NAME] Applicant, [APPELLANT]’s application for a temporary work permit and refusing the [NAME], [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] and [NAME] [APPELLANT]’s applications for temporary resident visas ( “the Decisions” ). [ 2 ] The Applicants argue that the Decisions are unreasonable because the Officer did not consider the full factual and legal matrix applicable to the [NAME] Applicant’s application and the [NAME]’ applications. [ 3 ] The Respondent argues that the Decisions are reasonable because the Officer’s reasons are transparent, justified and intelligible, and consistent with the applicable factual and legal constraints. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, this application is dismissed.

II. Background [ 5 ] The [NAME] Applicant is a citizen of Iran. She is married to [NAME] [APPELLANT]; he holds a valid work permit and works as a food store clerk with the [COMPANY] in Vancouver, British Columbia. [ 6 ] The [NAME] are the minor children of the [NAME] Applicant and Mr. [APPELLANT]. [ 7 ] On September 28, 2024, the [NAME] Applicant submitted four separate applications. She applied for a Spousal Open Work Permit ( “SOWP” ) for herself and applied for temporary resident visas ( “TRV” ) for the three [NAME]. [ 8 ] On January 23, 2025, the [NAME] Applicant’s application for a SOWP was refused because the Officer was not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorised period of stay. The Officer states: The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in your job offer and your assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for yourself and (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). You have significant family ties in Canada. [ 9 ] The Global Case Management System ( “GCMS” ) notes, which form part of the reasons for Decision, states: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the HOF’s paystubs and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant (and any accompanying family member(s), HOF is making $17.41/hour. This is below LICO for a family size of 5. The applicant has significant family ties in Canada. 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. [ 10 ] The same day, on January 23, 2025, the [NAME]’ applications for TRVs were refused. In these Decisions, the Officer states that they are not satisfied that the [NAME] will leave Canada at the end of the period authorised for their stay based on the following factors: You have significant family ties in Canada. You do not have significant family ties outside of Canada. The purpose of your visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details you have provided in your application. [ 11 ] The GCMS notes, which form part of the reasons for these Decisions, state: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant has significant family ties in Canada. The Applicant does not have significant family ties outside of Canada. The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. 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. [ 12 ] The [NAME] Applicant filed an application for judicial review on February 18, 2025, challenging all four Decisions.

III. Issues and Standard of Review [ 13 ] The parties submit, and I agree, that the standard of review applicable to the Decision in this case is reasonableness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [NAME] ] at paras 25, 86). [ 14 ] Reasonableness review is a deferential standard and requires an evaluation of the administrative decision to determine if the decision is transparent, intelligible, and justified ( [NAME] at paras 12–15, 95). The starting point for a reasonableness review is the reasons for decision. Pursuant to the [NAME] framework, a reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( [NAME] at para 85). [ 15 ] To intervene on an application for judicial review, the Court must find an error in the decision that is central or significant to render the decision unreasonable ( [NAME] at para 100). [ 16 ] The standard of review for procedural fairness issues is correctness, or akin to correctness ( [NAME] at para 53; Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FCA 69 at paras 54–56). The reviewing court must consider what level of procedural fairness is necessary in the circumstances and whether the “procedure followed by the administrative decision maker respect[s] the standards of fairness and natural justice” ( [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 733 at para 13). In other words, a court must determine if the process followed by the decision maker achieved the level of fairness required in the circumstances ( [NAME] v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) , 2020 FC 120 at para 23, citing with approval [NAME] v [NAME] , 2014 SCC 24 at para 79). [ 17 ] The issues in this application are: a) Were the Officer’s decisions reasonable? b) Has there been a breach of the duty of procedural fairness owed to the Applicants? [ 18 ] I also note that pursuant to Rule 302 of the Federal Courts Rules , SOR/98-106 (the “Rules” ), applications for judicial review are to be limited to a single administrative decision. However, an applicant may challenge two or more decisions in a single application, where the decisions are continuing acts or a continuing course of conduct. [ 19 ] In my view, the Decisions at issue in this application constitute a continuing course of conduct and they may be addressed in the single application. The Decisions are linked by virtue of the parties, the facts, the basis for the decisions and the legal issues raised in the present application; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019 FC 842. Further, in my view, it is in the interests of justice and in keeping with Rule 3 of the Rules to dispense with the requirement for a formal motion to address this issue.

IV. Analysis A. Reasonableness [ 20 ] The Applicants argue that the Officer unreasonably refused their applications based on the purpose of their visit. Namely, that the Officer’s finding that the purpose of their visit was not consistent with a temporary stay, that they lacked significant family ties outside of Canada, and their financial assets were insufficient. [ 21 ] In support of their applications, the [NAME] Applicant submitted a copy of her spouse, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s work permit, a copy of their marriage certificate, birth certificates of their children, financial documents illustrating that the [NAME] Applicant had a bank balance of $39, 597.62 Canadian, proof of ownership of real estate in Iran, a letter from the [NAME] Applicant setting out family ties to Iran, namely her mother and siblings, and prior travel history. In addition, the Applicants submitted a letter dated September 23, 2024 from [NAME] [NAME], a [NAME], that indicates that the well-being and mental health of the children require family reunification as soon as possible. [ 22 ] The Applicants argued that section 3(1)(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, ( “IRPA” ) underscores the objective of family unification. [ 23 ] The [NAME] Applicant argued that she submitted evidence that demonstrated sufficient funds were available to support the temporary applications. This included her spouse, Mr. [APPELLANT]’s pay slips from [COMPANY] and her bank account balance showing a balance of $39, 597.62 Canadian. The Applicants argue that the Officer’s failure to reference the evidence that established proof of sufficient financial assets illustrates that the Officer failed to meaningfully grapple with the applicable evidence in support of their applications. [ 24 ] The Respondent argues that the Officer conducted a proper analysis of the applications and made reasonable decisions based on the information before them. [ 25 ] The Respondent argues that the crux of the Decisions are linked to the Applicants’ financial assets. The Respondent notes that, in the Decision for the [NAME], the Officer notes that he considered the available assets, which included the salary of the [NAME]. However, the Officer noted that Mr. [APPELLANT]’s salary, at $17.41 per hour, is below the low-income cut-off ( “LICO” ) for a family of five. [ 26 ] The Respondent notes that the Officer’s Decisions ought to be read as a whole. A review of the complete applications indicates that: Mr. [APPELLANT] is a part-time employee and a review of the pay slips indicate an average of 11.21 hours per week, or 44.84 hours per month. The Primary Applicant has limited employment experience, as her primary role for more than ten years has been a caregiver to her three minor children, and she does not currently have a Canadian job offer. Finally, the [NAME] have not applied for study permits and they have no plans to attend school. [ 27 ] The onus is on the party challenging a decision to establish that it is unreasonable. [ADDRESS] must be satisfied that the errors are sufficiently serious to warrant the Court’s intervention; [NAME] at para 100. [ 28 ] Officers have significant expertise and experience in analysing applications, and the Courts must give considerable deference to an officer when reviewing a decision. Officers are presumed to have considered and weighed all the evidence presented in an application. [ 29 ] Reasonableness is not perfection, an officer’s duty to provide reasons falls on the low-end of the spectrum, and the Court ought to defer to a decision-maker’s expertise, provided the decision is understandable; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2016 FC 690 [ [NAME] ] at para 32. [ 30 ] The Respondent also argues that while the focus of the Officer’s Decisions concerns the Applicants’ financial assets, the Applicants’ family ties and the Officer’s conclusions do not vitiate the Decisions. [ 31 ] The Respondent relies on [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2026 FC 225 at paras 14 – 16, in support of the reasonableness of the Officer’s Decisions. In Pham , Madam Justice Ferron noted that, while the IRPR and applicable policy and operational instructions do not explicitly provide that family members must set out employability and financial assets, it was not unreasonable for an officer to consider this factor. [ADDRESS] found that the officer, “merely engaged in a logical assessment of the evidence, to determine if the requested stay was sustainable and whether the Applicants were likely to leave the country when legally required to.” [ADDRESS] further found that, “the Officer did not import additional criteria into the applicable legal framework.” Finally, the Court held that the reference to the LICO was an objective point of reference to assess the overarching application. [ 32 ] I am persuaded by this argument. A review of the GCMS notes in the Decision for the [NAME] Applicant states: … The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the HOF’s paystubs and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant (and any accompanying family member(s), HOF is making $17.41/hour. This is below LICO for a family size of 5. … [ 33 ] The Applicants made much of the fact that the Decisions reference the [NAME] [head of family’s] paystubs and argued that the Officer only considered the HOF’s assets. I do not agree. The Decisions also reference “their assets” indicating that the Officer considered the other financial assets, namely the [NAME] Applicant’s savings and the evidence related to real estate assets in Iran. [ 34 ] The evidence in support of the Applicants’ applications illustrated that they sought a SOWP and TRVs to come to Canada to reunite the family, as their spouse/father had a temporary work permit and was employed in Canada. The initial plan was for the family (five persons) to reside in Vancouver. While the Applicants provided evidence of savings and financial assets, coupled with the pay slips of Mr. [APPELLANT]’s employment in Canada, it was open to the Officer to find that this was not sufficient to support a family of five for a 2.5-year period. The Decisions are reasonable and are supported by the relevant and applicable factual and legal matrix. [ 35 ] In addition, while the Officer’s reasons are curt, with respect to family ties in Canada, in my view, the Applicants have not pointed to an error that warrants this Court’s intervention. If the applications were accepted, the entire nuclear family would be in Canada. While the Applicants have ties in Iran, it was open to the Officer to conclude that those ties were not sufficient to demonstrate that the Applicants would not remain in Canada upon the expiration of their temporary visas. [NAME]. [NAME] of Procedural Fairness [ 36 ] The Applicants argued that the Officer failed to provide adequate reasons and provide them with an opportunity to respond to their concerns, breaching their right of procedural fairness. The Applicants seem to suggest that the Officer relied on extrinsic evidence, failed to engage fully with the evidence and made credibility findings. [ 37 ] The Respondent argued that the Applicants’ arguments concerning breach of procedural fairness are meritless. [ 38 ] I agree. Applicants have an obligation to put their best foot forward in their application. Applicants do not have an automatic right to an interview or opportunity to address an officer’s concerns. In this case, the Officer does not make any findings of credibility that would trigger a right to procedural fairness. As noted above, it was open to the Officer to conclude that the Applicants’ family ties outside of Canada were insufficient; this did not trigger the duty of procedural fairness.

V. Conclusion [ 39 ] The Decisions are reasonable and fall within the range of possible acceptable outcomes based on the applicable facts and law. The Applicants have not persuaded this Court that it ought to intervene. The Officer’s Decision in the [NAME] Applicant’s application, that she did not demonstrate that they had the financial assets to support a 2.5-year stay in Vancouver for a family of five, is transparent, intelligible and justified. In my view, based on the information set out in the applications, it was also open to the Officer to find insufficient ties to Iran. The fact that the Applicants disagree with the Decisions does not render the Decisions unreasonable or warrant this Court’s intervention. [ 40 ] I do not find that there has been a breach of procedural fairness. [ 41 ] The parties did not pose a question for certification and I agree that there are none.

JUDGMENT in IMM-3753-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : The Applicants are relieved from the requirement to bring a motion to have the four Decisions addressed in a single application. The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question is certified. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3753-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT], [APPELLANT] AND [NAME] [APPELLANT] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME]. DATED: June 10, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] [RESPONDENT] [NAME] [RESPONDENT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME] and Solicitors [NAME] of Canada Saskatoon, Saskatchewan For The Respondent