Mohammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1343 : Work Permit Denial Overturned After Officer Ignores Submitted Reference Letters and Training Certificates

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Shakeel Khan Mohammad’s employer-specific work permit application, supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The Officer refused the application, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated the ability to perform the work and was unlikely to leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the Officer failed to adequately consider submitted evidence and did not provide sufficient justification for the refusal.

Key Principle

Under section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), judicial review assesses whether a decision reflects the hallmarks of reasonableness—justification, transparency, and intelligibility. Visa Officers must engage with the evidence submitted and explain why it supports or undermines the decision. Failure to do so may render the decision unreasonable, even if certain documentation is formally required by internal instructions.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of India, received an offer of employment in Canada’s restaurant industry and obtained a positive LMIA. He submitted reference letters, pay slips, and education and training certificates demonstrating significant experience in food and beverage management. The Officer refused the work permit on the basis that the applicant did not submit bank statements or tax documents confirming regular income, and therefore could not verify his work experience or financial establishment.

The Officer’s GCMS notes and refusal letter emphasized the applicant’s lack of supporting financial documentation and expressed doubt that he would leave Canada at the end of his stay. The Officer did not engage with the evidence that was submitted, including reference letters and certifications demonstrating relevant experience and training.

Court Findings

• Evidence Not Adequately Considered

The Court emphasized that the Officer must consider the evidence that is submitted and provide reasons that explain how the decision was reached. The mere assertion that certain documents were required, without explaining why their absence was determinative in this case, was insufficient.

• Decision Lacked Reasoned Justification

The Officer failed to explain why the evidence submitted did not satisfy the work experience requirement. There was no discussion of the applicant’s documented prior employment or training. The Court concluded that the refusal lacked transparency and intelligibility, and therefore did not meet the Vavilov reasonableness standard.

• Inconsistency in Grounds of Refusal

The refusal letter and GCMS notes contained inconsistent statements regarding the applicant’s ability to perform the work and likelihood of leaving Canada, further undermining the clarity and justification of the decision.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review. The decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Mohammad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1343 (CanLII)