Federal Court in Singh v Canada (2025 FC 1210) found a work‑permit refusal unreasonable because the officer failed to consider IRPR dual‑intent where a PR‑stream LMIA was on file. The ruling requires officers to expressly assess dual intent (impacting study permits, PGWPs and work permits) rather than treating PR plans as automatic grounds for refusal.
Soheil Hosseini
July 8, 2025
Jurisdiction
Federal
Week
Week 28
Impact
Moderate
Programs Affected
Immigration Policy Update: Authorities Urged to Consider Dual Intent in Visa Applications
Date of update: 2025-07-08
Source: Federal Court decision
Summary: The Federal Court in Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1210, held that a work permit refusal tied to a Permanent Resident–stream LMIA was unreasonable because the officer failed to assess Canada’s dual intent framework, instead refusing solely on the view the applicant would not leave at the end of status.
The Federal Court (McDonald J.) in Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1210 (Docket: IMM-5399-24), ruled that an officer’s refusal of a work permit was unreasonable where the underlying LMIA explicitly stated it was issued under the “Permanent Resident” stream—signaling that a temporary stay may be sought with the intention to transition to permanent residence.
Key finding: The officer denied the permit based only on the belief the applicant would not depart at expiry, without addressing the dual intent provisions under the IRPR or the LMIA’s PR-stream context. The Court found that failing to grapple with dual intent—particularly where a PR-stream LMIA is on file—renders the decision unreasonable, and that officers must not treat a future intention to apply for PR as an automatic ground for refusal under IRPR 200(1)(b).
Why it matters
When a Permanent Residence–stream LMIA is present, officers must acknowledge and assess dual intent, rather than equating PR plans with non-compliance. The decision underscores that the absence of any reference to dual intent and the PR-stream context is a reviewable error.
Programs affected
Study Permit
Post-Graduation Work Permit (PGWP)
Work Permit
Independent analysis
Potential positive impacts:
Strengthens procedural rigor in temporary resident decisions by requiring explicit engagement with dual intent where PR-stream LMIAs (or analogous contexts) exist.
May reduce refusals premised solely on speculative non-departure concerns and improve consistency in reasoning across work permit, study permit, and PGWP decisions.
Potential negative or limiting factors:
Officers will need to produce more detailed reasoning, which could modestly increase processing times.
As a single Federal Court decision, it guides but does not conclusively settle all scenarios; outcomes will still turn on evidence and the quality of officer reasons.
Court details
Case: Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1210
Court: Federal Court
Judge: McDonald J.
Docket: IMM-5399-24
Date: July 8, 2025
Closing
This ruling reinforces that dual intent is integral to fair assessments of temporary applications linked to permanent pathways. Applicants and representatives should ensure submissions clearly flag PR-stream documentation and invite officers to analyze dual intent expressly.
Tags: Canada immigration, Federal Court, dual intent, IRPR 200(1)(b), LMIA, Permanent Residence stream, work permit, study permit, PGWP, judicial review, Singh v Canada, 2025-07-08
Categories
Share This Post
Stay Updated with Immigration News
Get the latest updates on Express Entry draws, OINP invitations, policy changes, and more delivered to your inbox.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe at any time.
Related Articles
Exclusion Order Upheld
In Karim v. Canada (2025 FC 1467) the Federal Court upheld an exclusion order, ruling international students bear the onus to prove study‑permit compliance or eligibility for exemptions. Re‑enrollment does not cure past non‑compliance, and CBSA/IRCC are not required to identify or apply exemptions for applicants.
Misrepresentation Ban Upheld
Federal Court dismissed Lai Man Lam’s judicial review and upheld a five‑year inadmissibility finding under IRPA s.40(1)(a) after concluding her MBA was likely ghostwritten. The ruling affirms officers’ discretion to probe academic credentials through targeted interviews, finding procedural fairness met and the decision reasonable on review.
Work Permit Overturned
Federal Court set aside refusal of an LMIA‑supported employer‑specific work permit after finding the visa officer unreasonably dismissed reference letters, payslips and certificates while elevating missing optional financial documents to a determinative ground. In Mohammad v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the Court applied Vavilov, requiring transparent, holistic evidence assessments (not treating “additional” documents as mandatory) and remitted the matter for redetermination.
H&C Redetermination Ordered
Federal Court (Lin v. Minister, 2025 FC 1344) found a consultant’s omission of hardship evidence in an H&C (IRPA s.25(1)) application amounted to ineffective assistance and breach of procedural fairness, and ordered redetermination with leave to file new evidence. The Court confirmed prejudice is shown by a fairness deprivation (not proof of a likely different outcome) and no fresh H&C filing is required.