Introduction
The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s
refusal of Usman Ahmed’s work permit application to work in Canada as an
accounting technician or bookkeeper. The officer refused the application,
finding that Mr. Ahmed would not leave Canada after his authorized stay and
that he had not demonstrated the ability to perform the proposed work. The
Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer unreasonably focused on
work experience requirements that did not apply because the applicant already
held the required university education.
Key Principle
The Federal Court reaffirmed that
immigration officers must correctly apply the requirements of the relevant
occupation and cannot impose additional requirements that are not required by
law. A decision may be unreasonable where an officer relies on an irrelevant
factor and that error may have affected other conclusions in the decision.
Background
The applicant, a citizen of
Pakistan, applied for a work permit to work as an accounting technician or
bookkeeper. His proposed employment required consideration under the relevant
National Occupational Classification (NOC).
The officer refused the
application, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient work
experience or English language ability to perform the proposed employment. The
officer relied on the fact that the employment reference letters did not
establish that the applicant had performed the duties of the occupation.
However, the applicant held a
bachelor’s degree in accounting and finance. Under the applicable NOC
requirements, a college program in accounting or two years of university study
in accounting could satisfy the educational requirement. Work experience was
only required where the applicant lacked the necessary educational background.
Court Findings
• Work Experience Was Not
Required
The Court found that the
officer’s focus on work experience was unreasonable. Since the applicant held a
university degree in accounting and finance, he already met the educational
requirement for the occupation.
Justice Grammond noted that the
officer’s concern that the reference letters did not prove work experience was
irrelevant because experience was not required in the applicant’s
circumstances.
• Error Could Have Affected
Entire Decision
The Court considered whether the
work experience error affected only one part of the decision or the refusal as
a whole. Although the ability to perform the work and intention to leave Canada
are separate requirements, the officer’s reasons did not show that these issues
were considered independently.
The Court found that the
unreasonable assessment of work experience may have influenced the officer’s
conclusion that the applicant would not leave Canada after his authorized stay.
• Related Visa Refusals Also
Set Aside
Because the refusal of the
applicant’s spouse’s work permit and daughter’s visitor visa were based largely
on the refusal of Mr. Ahmed’s work permit, those decisions were also set aside.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted the
application for judicial review, set aside the work permit and visitor visa
refusals, and remitted the matters to a different officer for reconsideration.
No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2025 FC 1449 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
