Soltan Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 682 : Open Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Engage With Applicant’s Family and Economic Ties to Iran

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a refusal of an open work permit under the International Mobility Program. The Officer concluded that the Applicant had not established that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay, relying primarily on her parents’ presence in Canada and her lack of stable employment in Iran. The Court found that the Officer’s reasons failed to meaningfully engage with important evidence concerning the Applicant’s family and economic ties to Iran. Pasted text

Key Principle

Applicants for work permits, including LMIA-exempt open work permits intended to facilitate family reunification, must still satisfy paragraph 200(1)(b) of the IRPR and establish that they will leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. However, officers must provide sufficiently responsive reasons explaining why the evidence does not establish that requirement. IRCC guidelines may guide officers but do not replace the statutory and regulatory requirements. Pasted text

Background

The Applicant, a 21-year-old Iranian citizen, applied for an open work permit under the C46 International Mobility Program exemption as the dependent child of parents working in Canada. Her application explained that she sought to reunite with her parents but also maintained family and economic ties to Iran, including strong relationships with her grandmother and relatives in Tehran and ownership of real estate there. Pasted text

The Officer refused the application, finding that the Applicant lacked significant family ties outside Canada and that her employment situation did not demonstrate financial establishment in her country of residence. The GCMS notes did not identify or discuss the specific documents submitted in support of the application. Pasted text

Court Findings

• Requirement to establish departure: The Court rejected the argument that the C46 exemption eliminated the requirement to demonstrate an intention to leave Canada. Section 200(1)(b) of the IRPR applies to work permit applicants generally, including those applying under programs designed to facilitate family reunification. Pasted text

• Family ties were relevant but not determinative: The Officer could properly consider the Applicant’s parents being in Canada when assessing her ties to Iran. However, the Officer failed to address evidence that she had strong emotional and familial connections to her grandmother and relatives in Iran. The Court found that this evidence directly contradicted the conclusion that she had no significant family ties outside Canada. Pasted text

• Economic ties were inadequately assessed: The Applicant submitted deeds showing ownership of two apartments in Tehran and bank documentation concerning assets held in Iran. The Officer did not mention or explain why this evidence was insufficient. The Court held that the reasons did not demonstrate the responsiveness required by Vavilov. Pasted text

• Family support should not automatically be negative: The Officer noted that the Applicant would rely on her parents for financial support. The Court held that this should not automatically be treated as evidence supporting a conclusion that the Applicant would remain in Canada. Given evidence of the parents’ ability to support her, the Officer should at least have explained why that circumstance was considered negative. Pasted text

• Reasons cannot require speculation: Although visa officers have considerable discretion and reasons may be brief, the reviewing court cannot be required to reconstruct a rationale that the officer did not provide. The reasons must explain how and why the evidence led to the conclusion reached. Pasted text

Outcome

The Court found the refusal unreasonable because it was not adequately grounded in the evidence and did not provide intelligible and transparent reasons concerning the Applicant’s family and economic ties to Iran. The decision was quashed and the matter was remitted to a different officer for redetermination. No costs were awarded.

Case Citation:

Soltan Mohammadi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 682 (CanLII)