A Federal Court has overturned a work permit denial after finding an immigration officer made unfounded assumptions about an applicant’s family connections in Canada.
The Nov. 20 ruling found the officer’s decision lacked sufficient evidence and was based on speculation, failing to meet the standard required for administrative decisions.
The case involved an Indian citizen who applied for a closed work permit under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. He had a two-year job offer as a harvesting labourer on a Canadian farm that had obtained a positive labour market impact assessment.
An Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer denied the application, concluding the worker would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The officer cited insufficient financial means and significant family ties in Canada as reasons for refusal.
Evidence contradicted officer’s finding
The court found the officer’s conclusion about Canadian family ties had no basis in the record.
The applicant’s Family Information Form listed only his parents and brother, all residing in India. No other family members were documented as living in Canada.
The worker stated in his application that he lived with his parents and helped his father run the family farm in India. He wanted to learn about modern agricultural practices, including drip irrigation systems, to apply on the family farm.
He said he could not be away for extended periods because his father was aging and could not manage the farm alone for too long. He planned to return to India after completing the two-year contract.
Officer cited old visa refusals
The officer’s notes referenced three previously refused temporary resident visa applications to visit grandparents and relatives, as well as refused visa applications by the applicant’s parents and brother.
However, the notes did not explain when these applications were made and refused, whether any grandparents or relatives still lived in Canada, or why they would be considered significant pull factors.
“The GCMS notes do not explain, however, why the Officer concludes that ‘[y]ou have [present tense] significant family ties in Canada,'” the court stated.
The court found no evidence showing what current family ties existed in Canada.
“Simply put, I find that the Officer’s reasons are speculative and not sufficiently logical or transparent to survive a reasonableness review,” the ruling stated.
Government’s defence rejected
The government argued family members in Canada are a factor that may pull applicants toward staying beyond their authorized period. The officer could not infer the applicant had sufficient ties to India that would outweigh his family ties to Canada, according to the government’s position.
The court disagreed, citing lack of evidence in the record about current family connections in Canada.
The court also rejected comparisons to other cases. In one cited case, the applicant’s spouse, parents and sibling all resided in Canada. In another, an officer had no evidence about the kind of relationship an applicant had with family members in their home country.
Neither situation matched this case, where evidence showed the applicant lived with his parents and worked on the family farm with his father.
Decision sent back for review
The court set aside the work permit refusal and sent the matter to a different officer for redetermination.
A reasonable decision must show contextual justification, transparency and intelligibility, the court noted. The party challenging an administrative decision bears the burden of proving it unreasonable.
The court found the officer’s speculative reasoning did not meet that standard.
More coverage in our sister publication HR Law Canada here.
