Federal Court Upholds Work Permit Refusal Due to Non-Compliance

Date: 20260522 [NAME] : IMM-19081-24 Citation: 2026 FC 660 Toronto, Ontario , May 22, 2026 PRESENT: Madam Justice McDonald BETWEEN: [NAME] (Through litigation [NAME]) Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT [ 1 ] The Applicants are a family from Mexico, who have resided in the United States (US) since 2015. They seek judicial review of an Immigration Officer’s refusal of [NAME]’s work permit application, on which the other Applicants’ visas are dependent. [ 2 ] The Applicants first entered the US in 2015 on a work visa. In 2019, their US visas expired but they decided to remain in the US and work without authorization, because they felt safer in the US. The Applicants claim that they no longer fear returning to Mexico after circumstances changed in 2020, although they have not returned to Mexico since 2015. [ 3 ] In 2023, [NAME] began working remotely for a [COMPANY]. In 2024, he applied for a work permit to work on-site at the employer’s location in [COMPANY]. [ 4 ] The Officer refused this application on August 28, 2024.

I. Issues [ 5 ] The Applicants claim the Officer’s decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

II. Analysis A. Reasonableness of decision [ 6 ] The Applicants raise various issues with the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision. (1) Did the Officer consider the evidence? [ 7 ] First, they argue that the Officer failed to consider evidence, in the form of [NAME]’s letter that explains why he remained in the US without legal status, and letters from family in Mexico supporting his ties to Mexico. [ 8 ] The Officer explicitly notes this evidence but found it insufficient to outweigh their concerns regarding the Applicants’ non-compliance with US immigration laws. The Applicant’s explanation letter states that the Applicants decided to remain in the US after their visas expired because they felt safer in the US. In considering this letter, it was open to the Officer to find this an insufficient explanation for five years of non-compliance with US immigration laws. I also note that this letter indicates that the Applicants no longer fear returning to Mexico after 2020, and yet they did not return to Mexico. [ 9 ] The Officer also considered the supporting letters from friends and family but found these ties uncompelling. The Officer noted that, despite the alleged strong ties to Mexico, the Applicants did not return to Mexico and chose to remain in the US. This was a reasonable assessment of this evidence. [ 10 ] The Applicants cite [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2023 FC 835, where the Court found that the officer failed to consider significant evidence of the applicants’ ties to their home country (at paras 29-30). However, in this case, the Officer considered the Applicants’ evidence of ties to Mexico and found them insufficient. [ 11 ] In this matter, the refusal of [NAME]’s work permit effectively turned on a single issue: that the Applicants would not leave Canada after their authorized stay. The Officer reached this conclusion based on the Applicants’ non-compliance with US immigration laws. [ 12 ] The Applicants’ reasonableness arguments are merely requests to reweigh evidence that was before the Officer, which is not the Court’s role on judicial review. The Officer was justified in finding the Applicants would not leave Canada, since intentional non-compliance with another country’s immigration laws is a significant indicator that the Applicants would not comply with Canada’s immigration laws. (2) Did the Officer consider dual intent? [ 13 ] The Applicants argue that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable because it failed to address the work permit’s contemplated “dual intent.” [NAME] applied for a labour market impact assessment [LMIA] based work permit in the permanent residence stream, under which a temporary work permit may be issued on the expectation that the applicant will later seek permanent residence. They therefore submit that the Officer erred in refusing the permit on the basis that the Applicants would not leave Canada, because they may ultimately get the right to remain in Canada permanently. [ 14 ] The Applicants rely on [NAME] v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2025 FC 1210 [ [NAME] ]. [NAME] concerned a judicial review of an officer’s refusal of an LMIA-based work permit under the permanent residency stream, based on the officer finding Mr. [NAME] would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. [ADDRESS] found this decision unreasonable, because the officer did not address the dual intent of the work permit (at para 12). [ 15 ] In my view, [NAME] does not assist the Applicants because the facts of this case are materially different. The Applicants here openly acknowledge that they have lived in the US without authorization for many years and have remained there despite lacking legal status. In these circumstances, the Officer was not required to consider the dual intent provisions. On the Applicants’ own evidence, they did not leave the US when they no longer had status, so it was reasonable for the Officer to conclude that they would not leave Canada at the end of any authorized stay. [NAME] , this case includes a significant indicator that the Applicants would not comply with Canadian immigration laws: their non-compliance with US immigration laws. [ 16 ] Further, the dual intent provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , SC 2001, c 27, are predicated on a finding that an applicant will leave Canada at the end of their stay. Section 22(2) states: Dual intent (2) An intention by a foreign national to become a permanent resident does not preclude them from becoming a temporary resident if the officer is satisfied that they will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay . [Emphasis added.] Double intention (2) L’intention qu’il a de s’établir au Canada n’empêche pas l’étranger de devenir résident temporaire sur preuve qu’il aura quitté le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour autorisée . [ 17 ] Finally, there was no guarantee that the Applicants will apply for, or be granted, permanent resident status; therefore, whether they will return to their home country was an essential consideration for the Officer. [ 18 ] The finding that the Applicants would not leave Canada was determinative for the Officer and was a reasonable finding based on the evidence. B. Procedural fairness [ 19 ] The Applicants argue they were denied procedural fairness because the Officer effectively made a veiled credibility finding that the Applicants’ intentions to leave Canada after their authorized stay was not genuine. [ 20 ] I disagree. The Officer did not disbelieve the Applicants stated intentions that they would leave Canada but rather found this evidence insufficient to outweigh the serious concerns arising from the Applicants’ intentional violation of US immigration laws.

III. Conclusion [ 21 ] This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-19081-24 THIS COURT’S

JUDGMENT is that : This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification. blank "Ann Marie McDonald" blank Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF [NAME] : IMM-19081-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: [NAME] et al v mci HEARING

HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE AT : Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: april 21, 2026

REASONS AND

JUDGMENT : McDonald J. DATED: May 22, 2026 APPEARANCES : [NAME] FOR THE APPLICANTS [NAME] FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : [NAME], Ontario FOR THE APPLICANTS Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT