Case: Zavala v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 660: Work Permit Refusal Upheld Due to U.S. Immigration Non-Compliance

Introduction

The Federal Court upheld the refusal of a Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA)-based work permit application after an officer concluded that the applicants were unlikely to leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. The Court found that the applicants’ prolonged and intentional non-compliance with U.S. immigration laws reasonably supported concerns about their future compliance with Canadian immigration requirements.

Key Principle

The decision confirms that intentional non-compliance with another country’s immigration laws may reasonably support a finding that an applicant is unlikely to comply with Canadian immigration laws or leave Canada at the end of an authorized stay. In such circumstances, an officer is not required to place significant weight on dual intent considerations.

Background

Javier Rosales Zavala and his family, citizens of Mexico, had been living in the United States since 2015. After their U.S. visas expired in 2019, they chose to remain in the country without legal status, explaining that they felt safer there than in Mexico. Although they later stated that conditions in Mexico had improved and they no longer feared returning, they continued residing in the United States without authorization.

In 2023, Mr. Zavala began working remotely for a Nova Scotia employer and subsequently applied for an LMIA-based work permit to work on-site in Canada. The accompanying applications of his spouse and children were dependent on the outcome of his work permit application.

Court Findings

The Federal Court held that the officer reasonably concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay. The officer considered the applicants’ explanations, letters from relatives in Mexico, and evidence of family ties, but found that these factors were outweighed by their decision to remain unlawfully in the United States for approximately five years.

Justice McDonald emphasized that the applicants openly admitted they had intentionally violated U.S. immigration laws and continued to reside there despite lacking legal status. The officer was entitled to view this conduct as a significant indicator of future non-compliance with Canadian immigration requirements.

The applicants also argued that the officer failed to consider the principle of dual intent because the work permit was connected to a pathway that could eventually lead to permanent residence. The Court rejected this argument. Unlike cases where dual intent was central to the analysis, the officer’s concern here was not the applicants’ future desire for permanent residence, but their demonstrated history of disregarding immigration laws. The Court noted that dual intent under subsection 22(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires an officer to be satisfied that an applicant will leave Canada if permanent residence is not obtained.

The Court further found no breach of procedural fairness. The officer did not make a hidden credibility finding but instead accepted the applicants’ explanations and determined that those explanations were insufficient to overcome concerns arising from their immigration history.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review and upheld the refusal of the LMIA-based work permit application.

Case Citation: Zavala v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 660 (CanLII)