Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 991 : Work Permit Extension Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Ignored Contradictory Residency Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Baljit Singh’s application to extend his work permit from within Canada. The officer concluded that Mr. Singh no longer resided in Canada because his Electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) application listed Italy as his residence. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer relied on the eTA application while failing to properly address the IMM 5710 form showing that Mr. Singh resided in British Columbia.

Key Principle

An immigration officer must assess the complete evidentiary record and cannot rely on one piece of information while ignoring other directly relevant evidence. Where conflicting documents exist, the officer must explain why one document is preferred over another, especially where the ignored evidence is central to eligibility.

Background

Mr. Singh, an Italian citizen, held temporary resident status in Canada and had previously received work permits as a farm worker and farm supervisor. Before his work permit expired, he applied for an extension based on a new employment offer and positive LMIA from his Canadian employer. His application included extensions for his spouse’s open work permit and his daughter’s visitor record.

After submitting the work permit extension application, Mr. Singh travelled to India and submitted an eTA application listing Italy as his residence. He later returned to Canada and remained there. The officer refused his work permit extension because the officer concluded he was no longer living in Canada.

Court Findings

• Officer Relied Primarily on the eTA Application

The officer relied on the fact that Mr. Singh’s eTA application listed his residence as Italy. Based on this information, the officer concluded that Mr. Singh did not meet the requirements for an extension of his work permit from within Canada.

• IMM 5710 Was Critical Evidence

The Court found that the officer failed to properly consider the IMM 5710 form submitted with the work permit extension application. That form identified Mr. Singh’s residence as British Columbia and directly supported his position that he was residing in Canada.

• Separate Applications Could Not Automatically Override Each Other

The Court held that the eTA application was a separate application from the work permit extension application. Although it listed Italy as a residence, it was not conclusive evidence that Mr. Singh had ceased residing in Canada. The officer needed to reconcile this information with the IMM 5710 form.

• Officer Accepted Travel Was Permitted but Failed to Apply That Logic

The officer acknowledged that IRCC policy allowed applicants to leave and return to Canada while their work permit extension was being processed. Mr. Singh had done exactly that. The Court found the officer failed to explain why temporary travel outside Canada meant he no longer resided in Canada.

• Important Evidence Cannot Be Ignored

The Court emphasized that while decision-makers do not need to mention every piece of evidence, the failure to address important contradictory evidence may demonstrate that the evidence was overlooked. The IMM 5710 was particularly important because it was the basis of the work permit extension application itself.

• Remaining Arguments Were Rejected

The Court rejected arguments that the officer should have relied on MP inquiries or CBSA entry/exit records. The applicant had the responsibility to provide evidence establishing his residence in Canada, and the officer was not required to independently search for evidence on his behalf.

• Family Members’ Refusals Were Also Unreasonable

Because the refusals of the spouse’s open work permit extension and daughter’s visitor record extension were based on the refusal of Mr. Singh’s work permit extension, those decisions were also unreasonable once the principal decision was found unreasonable.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusals, and remitted the matters for redetermination. No costs were awarded and no question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 991 (CanLII)