Federal Court Upholds Work Permit and Visa Refusals

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Date: 20260601 Docket: IMM-6016-25 Citation: 2026 FC 703 Ottawa, Ontario, June 1, 2026 PRESENT: The [NAME]: [APPELLANT] Applicants and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND [RESPONDENT] Respondent

REASONS FOR

JUDGMENT I. Overview [ 1 ] The Applicants, Ms. [APPELLANT], and her 4-year-old daughter, Miss [APPELLANT] [Accompanying Applicant], are citizens of Iran. Ms. [APPELLANT] is seeking judicial review of a decision dated March 3, 2025 [Primary Decision] of an Officer of [RESPONDENT], Refugees, and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refusing her application for a work permit. Ms. [APPELLANT] is also seeking judicial review of a decision dated March 3, 2025 [Secondary Decision], refusing the Accompanying Applicant’s accompanying temporary resident [NAME]. The Officer was not satisfied that Ms. [APPELLANT] and the Accompanying Applicant met the requirements of the [RESPONDENT] Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and the [RESPONDENT] Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. [ 2 ] On judicial review before this Court, Ms. [APPELLANT] raises two issues with the Officer’s Primary Decision: Was the Officer’s Primary Decision refusing Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit unreasonable? Was the Primary Decision rendered in a procedurally fair manner? [ 3 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] argues that she submitted a complete application, addressing her eligibility for a work permit and a temporary resident [NAME] for the Accompanying Applicant. She submits that the Officer’s findings were not supported by the evidentiary record and fail to reflect a rational, transparent, and justified analysis as required by [NAME] , rendering the Primary Decision unreasonable. She further argues that the Primary Decision was not procedurally fair because the Officer should have provided her with an opportunity to respond to their concerns. [ 4 ] The Respondent, Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT] [Minister], argues that the Officer reasonably refused Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit based on insufficient evidence, namely that her assets and financial situation are insufficient to support her and the Accompanying Applicant’s temporary travel. The Minister further argues that the Primary Decision was rendered in a procedurally fair manner because the Officer did not have a duty to alert Ms. [APPELLANT] of shortcomings in her application. [ 5 ] For the reasons that follow, the application for judicial review is dismissed. The Officer reasonably assessed Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application and justified why she did not qualify for her work permit under the [NAME]. Moreover, Ms. [APPELLANT] did not establish that there was a breach of her right to procedural fairness.

II. Decisions Under Judicial Review [ 6 ] By letter dated March 3, 2025, the Officer denied Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit application under the [NAME] on the basis that they were not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her stay as required by paragraph 200(1)(b) of the IRPR because the compensation (monetary or other) indicated in her job offer, her assets and her financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for herself and the Accompanying Applicant. [ 7 ] The [NAME] [[NAME]] notes of March 3, 2025, provide further reasons supporting the Officer’s Primary Decision to deny Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the applicant's job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable). The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they are financially established in their country of residence and will be able to support their purpose of travel. The applicant has not provided an explanation for the provenance of a large deposit of liquid funds that was made into the applicant’s banking account shortly before the application was submitted to demonstrate that they will have reliable access to these funds and, as such, I have afforded this amount less weight in my analysis. While the applicant has provided pay slips and a letter of employment from the spouse in Canada showing an annual salary of $34,345, this documentation does not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant and their spouse will be able to meet the [NAME] of $44,966 to support a family of three in Canada while the applicant gets established 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. [ 8 ] By letter dated March 3, 2025, the Officer also denied the application for temporary resident [NAME] of the Accompanying Applicant. The Officer determined the Accompanying Applicant’s application did not meet the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR. Specifically, the Officer was not satisfied that the Accompanying Applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay as required by paragraph 179(b) of the IRPR, based on the purpose of her visit to Canada not being consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. [ 9 ] The [NAME] notes of March 3 rd , 2025 provide further reasons supporting the Officer’s Secondary Decision to deny the Accompanying Applicant’s application: I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The purpose of the applicant's visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. The work permit application of the applicant's [NAME] has been refused thus negating the applicant's purpose of travel as a dependent child. 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.

III. Standard of Review [ 10 ] The parties agree that the merits of both the Primary and Secondary Decisions are reviewable on the presumptive standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) v [NAME] , 2019 SCC 65 [ [RESPONDENT] ] at paras 10 , 25. [ 11 ] To avoid intervention on judicial review, a decision must bear the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency, and intelligibility: [NAME] at para 99. A reasonable decision will always depend on the constraints imposed by the legal and factual context of the decision under review: [NAME] at para 90. [ 12 ] [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” : [NAME] at paras 125-126. The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up” : [NAME] at para 104. [ 13 ] The reasonableness standard requires that a reviewing court show curial deference to such a decision: [NAME] at para 85. The party challenging the decision bears the onus of demonstrating that the decision is unreasonable: [NAME] at para 100. [ 14 ] On the other hand, breaches of procedural fairness in administrative contexts have been considered reviewable on a correctness standard or subject to a “reviewing exercise … ‘best reflected in the correctness standard’ even though, strictly speaking, no standard of review is being applied” : [COMPANY] v Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018 FCA 69 [ [NAME] ] at para 54. [ 15 ] The duty of procedural fairness “is ‘eminently variable’, inherently flexible and context-specific” ; it must be determined with reference to all the circumstances, including the non-exhaustive list of factors stated in [NAME]  at paragraphs 22-23: [NAME] at para 77. [ 16 ] In summary, the focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair. In the words of the Federal Court of Appeal, the ultimate or fundamental questions are: [56] No matter how much deference is accorded administrative tribunals in the exercise of their discretion to make procedural choices, the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond . It would be problematic if an a priori decision as to whether the standard of review is correctness or reasonableness generated a different answer to what is a singular question that is fundamental to the concept of justice— was the party given a right to be heard and the opportunity to know the case against them? Procedural fairness is not sacrificed on the altar of deference. [NAME] at para 56, emphasis added.

IV. Analysis A. Applicable Principles of [RESPONDENT] [ 17 ] The most fundamental principle of [RESPONDENT] law is that [NAME] have no unqualified right to enter or remain in Canada: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]); [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]), 2005 SCC 51 at para 46, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Minister of Employment and [RESPONDENT]) , [1992] 1 SCR 711 at 733. [ 18 ] The applicable statutory provisions are subsection 11(1) and paragraph 20 (1)(b) of the IRPA and apply equally to work permit applicants as per subsection 200(1)(b) of the IRPR. These provisions read as follows, respectively: 11 (1) Application before entering Canada – A [NAME] national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a [NAME] or for any other document required by the regulations. The [NAME] or document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that [NAME] is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act. 11 (1) [NAME] et documents – [NAME] doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à l’agent les [NAME] et autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent peut les délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, que [NAME] n’est pas interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi. Obligation on entry 20 (1) [NAME] national, other than a [NAME] national referred to in section 19, who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must establish, (…) (b) to become a temporary resident, that they hold the [NAME] or other document required under the regulations and will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay. Obligation à l’entrée au Canada 20 (1) [NAME] non visé à l’article 19 qui cherche à entrer au Canada ou à y séjourner est tenu de prouver : (…) (b) pour devenir un résident temporaire, qu’il détient les [NAME] ou autres documents requis par règlement et aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée. Work permits 200 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) — and, in respect of a [NAME] national who makes an application for a work permit before entering Canada, subject to section 87.3 of the Act — an officer shall issue a work permit to a [NAME] national if, following an examination, it is established that (…) (…) Permis de travail — demande préalable à l’entrée au Canada 200 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), et de l’article 87.3 de la Loi dans le cas de [NAME] qui fait la demande préalablement à son entrée au Canada, l’agent délivre un permis de travail à [NAME] si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments ci-après sont établis (…) (b) [NAME] will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9; b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la partie 9; B. Was the Officer’s Primary Decision refusing Ms. [APPELLANT]’s work permit unreasonable? [ 19 ] First, Ms. [APPELLANT] submits the Officer made a factual error in the Primary Decision, which states that “the compensation […] indicated in the applicant’s job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant […]” (emphasis added). The same factual error appears in the [NAME] notes where the Officer noted: “The compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the applicant's job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant (and any accompanying family member(s), if applicable)” (emphasis added). However, the written submissions by counsel for Ms. [APPELLANT] explains that no job offer was included with her application, and indicates that, based on information available on the Government of Canada website, a job offer is not a requirement for the issuance of the open work permit she applied for: Government of Canada, “Open work permits for family members of [NAME] workers: Who can apply” (December 5, 2024), online: [https://perma.cc/4DDV-RMUE?type=image].

Accordingly, Ms. [APPELLANT] submits the Primary Decision is unreasonable. [ 20 ] The Minister submits that the Officer’s reference to the compensation in a job offer is not a reviewable error. At the hearing, the Minister conceded that the Officer had erred in referencing “the applicant’s job offer” but noted that it was not determinative. [ 21 ] While I agree with the parties that this is an error made by the Officer, I am not persuaded that this error is sufficient to render the Primary Decision as a whole unreasonable, given the other concerns raised about Ms. [APPELLANT]’s compensation and assets and financial situation being insufficient: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 576 at para 28; [APPELLANT] at para 100. [ 22 ] Second, Ms. [APPELLANT] argues that she submitted sufficient financial documentation to show she is financially established in her country of residence. Ms. [APPELLANT] submits the combination of the bank account records, her spouse’s stable income, in addition to the title deeds and leases for Iranian properties, contradict the Officer’s finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish she was financially established in her country of residence. Ms. [APPELLANT] relies on [NAME] (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2025 FC 1577 at paragraphs 2 and 7 to argue that the Officer should have at least mentioned the Title Deeds and leases, and explain why the documents in question were insufficient to satisfy the Officer of their financial ability to support their trip to Canada, especially since one of the properties generates income. Ms. [APPELLANT] further submits the Officer’s Primary Decision contains “vague language” and the [NAME] notes are ambiguous such that there is no way to understand the rationale for the Primary Decision and liken this case to that of Justice Pentney in [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]), 2024 FC 856. [ 23 ] While Ms. [APPELLANT] makes arguments regarding what the Officer does not say in the Primary Decision and in his [NAME] notes, she fails to address what the [NAME] notes do say. In my view, Ms. [APPELLANT] fails to address a number of the other above-referenced Officer’s findings in the [NAME] notes that relate to the insufficiency of financial documents and the ensuing lack of financial establishment in their country of residence able to support their purpose of travel. I will explain. [ 24 ] The Officer noted in the [NAME] notes that they have afforded less weight to the amount in Ms. [APPELLANT]’s bank account because she had “not provided an explanation for the provenance of a large deposit of liquid funds that was made into [her] bank account shortly before the application was submitted to demonstrate that they will have reliable access to these funds.” It is open to the Officer to consider not only the funds available to a [NAME] but also the source, nature, and stability of those funds when assessing whether an applicant will depart Canada at the end of their authorized stay: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2024 FC 875 at para 23; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 FC 1613 at para 29; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2023 FC 494 at para 12. It was therefore reasonable for the Officer to be concerned regarding the source of some of the large deposit of liquid funds shown on her bank statements and to conclude that these bank statements are insufficient evidence to establish the source of the funds. [ 25 ] The Officer also noted in the [NAME] notes that: While the applicant has provided pay slips and a letter of employment from the spouse in Canada showing an annual salary of $34,345, this documentation does not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant and their spouse will be able to meet the [NAME] of $44,966 to support a family of three in Canada while the applicant gets established in Canada. [ 26 ] I agree with the Minister that it was not unreasonable for the Officer to consider Ms. [APPELLANT]’s in-Canada spouse’s income in terms of Low Income Cut Offs [LICO]: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2026 FC 225 at paras 16-18. Although not a legislative requirement, it was reasonable for the Officer to consider the LICO to assess Ms. [APPELLANT]’s spouse’s ability to support the family in Canada. If one looks at the financials on the record before the Officer and compare them to the LICO, I can understand why the Officer determined that the “documentation does not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant and their spouse will be able to meet the [NAME] of 44,966 CAD to support a family of three in Canada while the applicant gets established in Canada.” [ 27 ] As mentioned by the Minister, the record shows that Ms. [APPELLANT]’s spouse’s 2024 pay stubs indicate a gross salary of $28,116.00 while residing in Burnaby and North Vancouver, British Columbia. The employment letter from [COMPANY]., a company located in Toronto, Ontario, states that Ms. [APPELLANT]’s spouse is working full time for an annual salary of $34,344.96 and that he has been employed since February 15, 2024, as a Project Planner. The December 2024 bank statement with no address and a bank branch identifier of 011800 was produced showing one month’s worth of transaction details, with a balance of $311.62 CAD and two large money transfers bringing the balance of the account in January 2025 to a little over $7,000 CAD. Even if one takes into account the gross before tax annual salary of a little over $34,000 CAD and adds the entirety of the spouse’s bank amount of $7,000 CAD, it becomes clear that the subtotal is still under the [NAME] of $44,966 CAD to support a family of three in Canada, especially when no indication of housing or other living expenses were accounted for by Ms. [APPELLANT]. [ 28 ] As for the income related to the leased Iranian properties and how they appear in Ms. [APPELLANT]’s bank statements, the letter from Ms. [APPELLANT] explaining the documents in her letter do not provide any explanation on the income relating to the leased Iranian properties and that they would be used to support their stay in Canada. What was explained by counsel for Ms. [APPELLANT] during the hearing should have been in the letter to the Officer. An applicant must submit an application that is not only “complete” but also relevant, convincing, and unambiguous that anticipates possible adverse inferences: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2012 FC 526 at para 52; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]), 2012 FC 1542 at para 25. In fact, Ms. [APPELLANT]’s letter indicates that property ownership documents were provided to address previous concerns related to her ties to her home country. No where does the letter mention that rental income from such properties would be used to support their stay in Canada: CTR at 14-15. The Officer cannot be blamed for not interpreting the evidence as she now submits before the Federal Court when that was not how it was presented to the Officer and there is an alternative way the submitted evidence can be reasonably interpreted. [ 29 ] In my view, the reasons provided by the Officer are reasonable and invite deference from this Court ( [NAME] at para 85) , given the broad discretion enjoyed by the Officer. [ 30 ] Given my finding that the Primary Decision is reasonable, the Officer’s finding in the Secondary Decision that “[t]he work permit application of the applicant's [NAME] has been refused thus negating the applicant's purpose of travel as a dependent child” is also reasonable. [NAME] the Primary Decision rendered in a procedurally fair manner? [ 31 ] The parties agree that the level of procedural fairness afforded in work permit applications is at the lower end of the scale and that an applicant must know the case they have to meet: [APPELLANT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2021 FC 1002 at para 34 ; [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2018 FC 1163 at para 26 . [ 32 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] argues she provided all required documents in good faith to demonstrate her intent to leave Canada at the end of her stay and that the only basis for discounting this evidence would be concerns regarding their credibility or the credibility of their evidence. As such, Ms. [APPELLANT] argues procedural fairness would require the Officer to provide her with an opportunity to allay these concerns, notwithstanding the low level of procedural fairness owed to applicants in the work permit and temporary resident [NAME] contexts: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2020 FC 77 at para 10. Ms. [APPELLANT] argues that in this case, the Officer’s determination that they were not satisfied that they would leave Canada at the end of their stay amounts to a veiled credibility finding: [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2017 FC 275 at para 31; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2019 FC 381 at paras 29-30. [ 33 ] As is evident from the record, the Officer’s concerns in this case relate to the sufficiency of the information in Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application, rather than to its credibility. The Officer did not disbelieve Ms. [APPELLANT] or doubt the authenticity of the documentation that she submitted. The refusal letter and the Officer’s notes recorded in the [NAME] are clear that the Officer refused Ms. [APPELLANT]’s application because of what it considered to be insufficient documentation to demonstrate financial establishment to support their stated purpose of travel. The Officer also noted the absence of explanation regarding the provenance of a large deposit of liquid funds shown on the banking account documents provided by Ms. [APPELLANT] shortly before her application was submitted, thereby raising concerns as to the accessibility of these funds. [ 34 ] I agree with the Minister that in this case, the Officer did not make any veiled credibility findings. Instead, the Officer was concerned about whether the family had sufficient funds to meet the requirements of the IRPA and the IRPR. [ 35 ] There is no obligation for an officer to afford an applicant the opportunity to clarify or supplement a deficient work permit application or to provide them with a “running score” of the weaknesses in their application: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2017 FC 1183 at para 29, citing [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2010 FC 665. It was Ms. [APPELLANT]’s responsibility to put her best case forward and the Officer was under no duty to raise concerns that arise from legislative requirements before rendering its Primary Decision: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2011 FC 1247 at para 83-85; [RESPONDENT] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 1184 at paras 22-23. [ 36 ] The onus was not on the Officer to take additional steps to seek out additional documents to address or satisfy outstanding concerns: [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and [RESPONDENT]) , 2022 FC 275 at para 16 . I find no breach of procedural fairness in the current circumstances.

V. Conclusion [ 37 ] For these reasons, the Court dismisses the application for judicial review. [ADDRESS] finds no fatal flaw or sufficiently serious shortcoming in the Primary Decision to render it unreasonable. It is not the Court’s role to reweigh the evidence or to remake the Primary Decision. The role of the Court is to determine whether the Officer’s Primary Decision was reasonable. [ 38 ] Neither party raised a serious question of [NAME] importance for certification, and I find that none arises in the circumstances of this matter.

JUDGMENT in IMM-6016-25 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that: The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question of [NAME] importance for certification. "[NAME]" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-6016-25 STYLE OF CAUSE: [APPELLANT] v MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND, [RESPONDENT] OF HEARING: held by videoconference DATE OF HEARING: May 26, 2026

REASONS and

JUDGMENT: [NAME] J. DATED: june 1, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] [RESPONDENT] For The ApplicantS [RESPONDENT] For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [COMPANY], ON For The ApplicantS [NAME] [NAME] OF CANADA TORONTO, ON For The Respondent