Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Refusal, Citing Unjustified Dismissal of Submitted Experience Evidence

Federal Court Overturns Work Permit Refusal, Citing Unjustified Dismissal of Submitted Experience Evidence

Summary: The Federal Court set aside a refusal of an LMIA-supported work permit after finding the Visa Officer ignored submitted work experience evidence and treated missing “additional” financial documents as determinative without explanation, contrary to the Vavilov reasonableness standard. The case clarifies that such financial documents are not mandatorily fatal in work permit applications and officers must provide transparent, holistic assessments of all evidence.

Date of update: 2025-08-05 | Source: Court Decision | Program affected: Work Permit In Mohammad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (2025 FC, citation pending), the Federal Court granted judicial review of a refusal issued to an Indian applicant for an employer‑specific work permit in the restaurant sector, despite a positive LMIA and job offer. The Officer discounted claimed experience in the UAE and India for lack of bank statements and income tax documents, while ignoring reference letters, pay slips, and certificates that were on file. Applying Vavilov (2019 SCC), the Court held the decision lacked justification and transparency. The judge emphasized that where departmental instructions refer to “additional supporting documents,” such materials are not mandatory in the same way as financial proofs in study permit contexts. Visa officers must consider all evidence, explain why any omissions are outcome‑determinative, and avoid conclusory assertions of insufficiency. The Court cited the need for holistic assessment (see Sangha, 2022 FC) and for officers to justify evidentiary gaps rather than mechanically fault applicants (see Ahmadalinezhad, 2025 FC). The Court also noted that inconsistencies between GCMS notes and the refusal letter undermine reasonableness. The application was allowed and remitted for redetermination; no certified question was stated. Independent analysis and implications - Positive impacts:
- Strengthens procedural fairness by requiring officers to engage with substantive experience evidence—especially crucial in LMIA‑supported cases.
- Provides a clear basis for challenging refusals where officers elevate optional financial documents over direct proof of work history.
- Encourages more consistent, reasoned decision‑making and clearer refusal letters aligned with GCMS notes.

- Potential downsides:
- May increase adjudicative burden and lengthen processing or refusal‑letter drafting as officers provide fuller rationales.
- Could prompt more judicial reviews in experience‑based refusals, potentially adding pressure on both IRCC and the Court.
- Applicants still bear a practical risk: while “additional” financial documents are not mandatory, unexplained gaps can remain problematic if officers articulate cogent reasons on redetermination. Why this matters For employers and applicants relying on positive LMIAs, the ruling confirms that evidence like reference letters and pay slips cannot be sidelined merely because bank statements or tax returns are missing. Officers must justify why omissions matter in the face of existing evidence. The decision distinguishes work permit evidentiary expectations from the mandatory financial proof regime in study permits, offering clearer guardrails for both applicants and representatives. Next steps The matter returns to IRCC for a new decision consistent with these principles. Representatives should ensure that key experience documents are cross‑referenced and highlighted, and that any absent materials are proactively explained to pre‑empt adverse inferences.

Tags: Canada Immigration, Work Permit, LMIA, Federal Court, Vavilov, Judicial Review, IRCC, Visa Officer, Evidence Assessment, Financial Documents, GCMS Notes, Sangha 2022 FC, Ahmadalinezhad 2025 FC, Reasonableness Standard, Restaurant Sector, UAE Experience, India Experience