Federal Court Upholds Rejection of Permanent Residency Application

Date: 20260514 Docket: IMM-22159-24 Citation: 2026 FC 628 Vancouver, British Columbia, May 14, 2026 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Norris BETWEEN: [NAME] Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The applicant is a 45-year-old citizen of India. In January 2021, she applied for permanent residency in Canada under the [NAME] on the strength of an offer of employment from a Canadian family who were seeking a full-time caregiver for their two children. At the time, the children were 14 and 12 years of age. [ 2 ] In August 2023, [NAME] ([NAME]) sent the prospective employer a procedural fairness letter requesting details on why a full-time caregiver was required given the children’s ages. [NAME] did not receive a response to the procedural fairness letter. [ 3 ] In January 2024, [NAME] sent the applicant a procedural fairness letter stating that no response to the earlier procedural fairness letter had been received and requesting certain documents from her. The applicant responded, including information from the prospective employer that a full-time caregiver was needed for the children “to tend to their essential requirements in terms of meals and extracurricular activities” because the father often travelled for work and the mother worked full-time in healthcare. [ 4 ] In May 2024, [NAME] sent the applicant a second procedural fairness letter stating that the decision maker had concerns that the offer of employment was not genuine and giving the applicant an opportunity to address these concerns. In response, the applicant provided a statement from the prospective employer that the eldest child – who was now over 18 – no longer required a full-time caregiver but the younger child – who was now 16 ½ years of age – still “needs care such as looking after his meals, laundry, educational training, keep record of routine care and support social development.” [ 5 ] In a decision dated August 21, 2024, an officer with [NAME] rejected the application, finding that the employment offer was not genuine. The officer found that “no specific explanation is given as to why the 16.5 years old child would still need full-time child care after school.” [ 6 ] The applicant has applied for judicial review of this decision under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 ( IRPA ), on the basis that it is unreasonable. [ 7 ] In my view, there is no basis to interfere with the decision. The burden was on the applicant to demonstrate that she met the requirements of the program, including that her prospective employer required the assistance of a full-time caregiver. The officer’s finding that no specific reason had been given for why a 16 ½ year old youth required a full-time caregiver is entirely reasonable. Considering the information before the officer and the reasons given, the decision is “based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis” and it is “justified in relation to the facts and law that constrain the decision maker” ( Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 85). [ 8 ] The parties did not propose any serious questions of general importance for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA . I agree that no question arises.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-22159-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that The application for judicial review is dismissed. No question of general importance is stated. “John Norris” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-22159-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: May 14, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT: NORRis J. DATED: May 14, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] For The Applicant [NAME] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], British Columbia For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent