Federal Court Upholds Refusal of Work Permit Application Outside Restoration Window

Date: 20260618 Docket: IMM-2649-25 Citation: 2026 FC 828 Ottawa, Ontario, June 18, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicant, Mr. [NAME], seeks judicial review of a January 21, 2025 decision [Decision], of an Officer of the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada [IRCC], refusing his third work permit application (Application number W309067374) and the restoration of his temporary resident status, which expired on June 11, 2024. The Officer refused the work permit application because it was submitted outside of the 90-day restoration window provided for by s. 182 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. [ 2 ] [NAME] submits the Officer’s Decision is unreasonable in light of the full evidentiary record exposed in his Application Record. [NAME] argues the Decision was unreasonable and the Officer should have considered his second work permit application (Application number W308137536), which was filed on June 13, 2024 (later refused on October 11, 2024) in determining the third work permit application (W309067374), submitted on October 2, 2024, was within the restoration window. [ 3 ] In response, the Respondent, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] submits the Officer considered all the documentary evidence submitted in support of [NAME]’s third work permit application (W309067374) and reasonably rejected the application pursuant to s. 182 of the IRPR because [NAME] did not meet the requirement for restoration. The Minister argues that [NAME]’s three separate work permit applications should be considered as three distinct applications, each to be adjudicated on its own merits by IRCC. The Minister argues that it was reasonable for the Officer to only consider [NAME]’s third work permit application (W309067374) submitted on October 2, 2024, after the expiry of the restoration period. [ 4 ] For the reasons that follow, this Court dismisses the application for judicial review.

II. Facts [ 5 ] [NAME] is a citizen of India who entered Canada in December 2020 as an international student and who applied for his initial work permit the same month. [ 6 ] In May 2023, [NAME] was granted a post-graduation work permit, which was valid until February 27, 2024. A. First Work Permit Application (W310043479) [ 7 ] On February 16, 2024, [NAME] applied for a work permit (W310043479). For this application, he received a letter from IRCC stating he was allowed to work under the same work permit he already had until August 17, 2024, or until a decision is made on his application, whichever occurs first. [ 8 ] On June 11, 2024, IRCC refused [NAME]’s application (W310043479), on the basis that the biometrics fee was not paid by the March 17, 2024 deadline, advising him that his temporary resident status expires on June 11, 2024, and that he may apply for restoration within 90 days from the expiry of his temporary resident status. [ 9 ] [NAME] argues that this June 11, 2024 decision of the IRCC was an error because he allegedly paid the biometrics fee by the deadline. However, [NAME] did not file any document showing this decision resulting in his status loss was ever contested by judicial review before this Court. B. Second Application W308137536 [ 10 ] On June 13, 2024, [NAME] submitted a second work permit application (W308137536). [ 11 ] On June 25, 2024, IRCC issued a biometrics instruction letter, which was completed by [NAME] on June 27, 2024. [ 12 ] On September 9, 2024, the 90-day restoration period expired. [ 13 ] On October 11, 2024, [NAME] received a refusal letter from IRCC noting that his work permit application (W308187536) was refused because he did not demonstrate he was eligible to apply for an Open Work Permit C41 under the IRPR and that his spouse must have a valid work permit of 6 months at the time of his application. The letter also states that his temporary resident status was maintained until a decision was made on the application for extension submitted on October 2, 2024. [ 14 ] In a post-hearing letter to the Court dated June 4, 2026, the Minister conceded that the IRCC letter dated October 11, 2024 misstated [NAME]’s immigration status in stating that his “temporary resident status has been maintained until a decision is made on the application for extension you submitted on 2024/10/02”, which the Minister agreed was an error . At the hearing, counsel for the Minister noted that there was some “dissonance” between the refusal letter and the GCMS notes. The Minister explained the October 11, 2024 refusal letter mentions an application for extension, while in reality, that application was for restoration of status. The January 21, 2025 GCMS notes correctly state that the October 2, 2024 work permit application (W309067374) was for restoration. [ 15 ] I note that this IRCC decision dated October 11, 2024 is not properly before this Court, nor did [NAME] advance any argument predicated on the above-mentioned minor error on judicial review. C. Third Application W309067374 [ 16 ] On October 2, 2024, [NAME] submitted a third work permit application (W309067374), supported by a Manitoba Provincial Nominee Program support letter dated September 27, 2024, issued under a Temporary Public Policy for prospective Provincial Nominee Program candidates. The Decision under review concerns this application.

III. Decision Under Review [ 17 ] The Decision under review is the IRCC letter dated January 21, 2025, which refused [NAME]’s third work permit application (W309067374) on the basis that he had exceeded the 90-day restoration period. The Decision explicitly states that [NAME]’s temporary resident status in Canada expired on June 11, 2024, and his application was made on October 2, 2024. The Officer notes that an application for restoration must be made within 90 days after loss of temporary resident status. In this case, the restoration period was valid from June 11, 2024, until September 9, 2024. As such, the Officer found [NAME] was not eligible for restoration of his temporary resident status as the work permit application was made after the restoration window closed. [ 18 ] The Officer’s Decision is further explained in the GCMS notes dated January 21, 2025, which form part of the Decision, as per [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) , 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 [ [NAME] ] at para 44, and are reproduced below: Client is applying for Restoration on an Open Work Permit. Client entered Canada on December 21, 2018 and had status until June 11, 2024. Client applied for Restoration on their previous work permit submitted on June 13, 2024. Their Restoration on this work permit was refused on October 11,2024. Client's 90 days Restoration period was valid from June 11, 2024 until September 9, 2024. Client's application was submitted on October 2, 2024 and client applied after their 90 day restoration date had passed. Client is not eligible for Restoration. Application is refused as per R182. Refusal letter sent to client and client advised of their status. Open Work Permit fee refund initiated [ 19 ] On January 24, 2025, [NAME] submitted a reconsideration request regarding his third work permit application (W309067374) with all relevant documentation. On February 13, 2025, IRCC sent a letter to [NAME] that states his application for a work permit that was received October 2, 2024 (W309067374) was considered on its substantive merits and has been refused and that he was provided with the reasons for refusal letter dated January 21, 2025, fully concluding his application. IRCC confirmed having considered the additional submissions and that the initial Decision to refuse his application remains unchanged.

IV. Issue and Standard of Review [ 20 ] [NAME]’s argument before this Court is that the Officer was unreasonable and should have considered his second work permit application (W308137536), filed on June 13, 2024, within the restoration period window (and later refused on October 11, 2024) in their determination of his third work permit application (W309067374) submitted on October 2, 2024. [ 21 ] However, contrary to his arguments, [NAME]’s Application for Leave and for Judicial Review filed before this Court only seeks the judicial review of the Decision, namely IRCC’s refusal of his third work permit application (W309067374). Consequently, the Order granting leave and the Production Order on file pertains solely to that Decision and by extension his third work permit application (W309067374). Moreover, no Application for Leave and for Judicial Review was filed in relation to the two previous decisions, and no extension of time to do so was filed. Under Rule 302 of the Federal Court Rules , SOR/98-106, an Application for Judicial Review is limited to a single order in respect of which relief is sought, unless an order is made by the Court. No such order was sought nor granted in this case: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1950 [ [NAME] ] at para 3. [ 22 ] As such, this matter before the Court only raises one genuine issue that must be determined by this Court: whether the Decision regarding the third work permit application (W309067374) was unreasonable because the Officer determined [NAME]’s October 2, 2024 application was made outside of the 90-day restoration window? [ 23 ] The parties agree that the merits of the Decision are reviewable on the presumptive standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 [ Vavilov ] at paras 10, 25. [ 24 ] To avoid intervention on judicial review, a decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility: Vavilov at para 99. A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the decision under review: Vavilov at para 90. [ 25 ] [ADDRESS] must avoid reassessing and reweighing the evidence before the decision-maker; however, a decision may be unreasonable if the decision-maker “fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it” : Vavilov at paras 125-126. The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision-maker’s reasoning “adds up” : Vavilov at para 104. [ 26 ] The reasonableness standard requires that a reviewing court show curial deference to such a decision: Vavilov at para 85. The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100.

V. Analysis A. Applicable Principles of Immigration Law and Statutory Provisions [ 27 ] The most fundamental principle of immigration law is that foreign nationals have no unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada: [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 51 at para 46, citing [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) , 1992 CanLII 87 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 711 at 733. [ 28 ] In this case, the following provisions of the IRPR are applicable: Restoration of Temporary Resident Status Restoration 182 (1) On application made by a visitor, worker or student within 90 days after losing temporary resident status as a result of failing to comply with a condition imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs 185(b)(i) to (iii) or paragraph 185(c), an officer shall restore that status if, following an examination, it is established that the visitor, worker or student meets the initial requirements for their stay, has not failed to comply with any other conditions imposed and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act. Exception (2) Despite subsection (1), an officer shall not restore the status of a student who is not in compliance with a condition set out in subsection 220.1(1). Rétablissement du statut de résident temporaire Rétablissement 182 (1) Sur demande faite par le visiteur, le travailleur ou l’étudiant dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la perte de son statut de résident temporaire parce qu’il ne s’est pas conformé à l’une des conditions prévues à l’alinéa 185a), aux sous-alinéas 185b)(i) à (iii) ou à l’alinéa 185c), l’agent rétablit ce statut si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, il est établi que l’intéressé satisfait aux exigences initiales de sa période de séjour, qu’il s’est conformé à toute autre condition imposée à cette occasion et qu’il ne fait pas l’objet d’une déclaration visée au paragraphe 22.1(1) de la Loi. Exception (2) Malgré le paragraphe (1), l’agent ne rétablit pas le statut d’un étudiant qui ne se conforme pas à l’une ou l’autre des conditions prévues au paragraphe 220.1(1). Work Without a Permit No permit required 186 A foreign national may work in Canada without a work permit […] (u) until a decision is made on an application made by them under subsection 201(1), if they have remained in Canada after the expiry of their work permit and they have continued to comply with the conditions set out on the expired work permit, other than the expiry date; Travail sans permis Permis non exigé 186 L’étranger peut travailler au Canada sans permis de travail : […] u) s’il a fait une demande en vertu du paragraphe 201(1), s’il est demeuré au Canada après l’expiration de son permis de travail et s’il continue à se conformer aux conditions imposées dans le permis exception faite de la date d’expiration, jusqu’à la décision sur sa demande; B. Was the Officer’s Decision refusing [NAME]’s work permit unreasonable? [ 29 ] The crux of [NAME]’s argument is that it was unreasonable for the Officer to fail to consider his previous timely work permit application of June 13, 2024 (W308137536) for restoration in determining that the October 2, 2024 work permit application (W309067374) was made outside of the 90-day restoration window. [ 30 ] A review of the relevant timeline may be helpful. [ 31 ] Having lost temporary residence status on June 11, 2024, by operation of the law as set out in s. 47(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, the 90-day restoration window then started. On June 13, 2024, [NAME] submitted a second work permit application (W308187536). On September 9, 2024, the 90-day restoration window closed. The second work permit application (W308187536) was denied on October 11, 2024. This application is not relevant to the determination at hand, and the refusal is not contested before this Court. [ 32 ] On October 2, 2024, [NAME] submitted a third work permit application (W309067374). However, when this third work permit application was submitted, the 90-day restoration window had closed as of September 9, 2024. The Officer refused [NAME]’s third work permit application (W309067374) on the basis that he had exceeded the 90-day restoration period. This is the only Decision, and the only work permit application, properly before this Court as per the Application for Leave and Judicial Review only referring to the January 21, 2025 Decision and the third work permit application (W309067374). [ 33 ] [NAME]’s arguments boils down to asking this Court to either consider his three separate applications as one unique application or to somehow consider that the October 2, 2024 work permit application (W309067374) was made prior to September 9, 2024, on account that a previously refused and unchallenged work permit application (W308187536) was made within the restoration period, on June 13, 2024. Unfortunately, as indicated in [NAME]’s Application for Leave and Judicial Review, the only decision before this Court is the refusal Decision dated January 21, 2025, in which the Officer determined that the October 2, 2024 application was made outside of the restoration window that closed on September 9, 2024. There is nothing unreasonable about this finding. [ 34 ] On judicial review, the burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable: Vavilov at para 100. [NAME] has not shown how the Decision is unreasonable and does not advance any legislative provision or jurisprudence that would support his interpretation of s. 182 of the IRPR as requiring the Officer in this case to have considered his October 2, 2024 work permit application (W309067374) as being filed prior to the expiration of the restoration period on September 9, 2024. I find this interpretation of s. 182 to not be grounded in the language of the provision, which clearly states an Officer shall grant restoration on an application made within 90 days after losing temporary resident status and no discretion is afforded to the officer: IRPR, s. 182; [NAME] at para 13; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2021 FC 607 at paras 32-33; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1828 at para 27. [ 35 ] [NAME] failed to meet the legislative requirement for restoration because the third application for restoration was submitted after the 90-day deadline, and considering the Officer had no discretion to waive this requirement, I find the Decision is not unreasonable: [NAME] at para 13. In my view, it was reasonably open to the Officer to determine that [NAME]’s October 2, 2024 work permit application was made outside the 90-day restoration window, which expired on September 9, 2024. The reasons provided by the Officer are reasonable and invite deference from this Court ( Vavilov at para 85) , given the broad discretion enjoyed by the Officer: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2022 FC 240 at para 8; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 886 at para 7.

VI. Conclusion [ 36 ] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review. It is not the Court’s role to reweigh the evidence or to remake the Decision. [ADDRESS] finds no fatal flaw or sufficiently serious shortcoming in the Decision to render it unreasonable. [ 37 ] Neither party raised a serious question of general importance for certification, and I find that none arises in the circumstances of this matter.

JUDGMENT in IMM-2649-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of general importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2649-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026 POST-HEARING SUBMISSION FROM RESPONDENT RECEIVED ON JUNE 4, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: JUNE 18, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], ONTARIO For The Applicant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA TORONTO, ONTARIO For The Respondent