Aslanyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 133 : Federal Court Reviews Open Work Permit Refusal After Officer Misunderstood Applicant’s Intended Length of Stay

Rafael Aslanyan, a Russian citizen, sought judicial review after an immigration officer refused his open work permit application. He applied as the accompanying spouse of a study permit holder, intending to visit his wife and son in Canada during periods of approved vacation from his permanent employment in Russia. The officer concluded that he intended to reside in Canada for two years and would not leave at the end of his authorized stay. The Federal Court found that conclusion unreasonable.

Key Principle

A visa officer must assess an application in light of the record as a whole. Where an applicant provides substantial evidence explaining the intended duration and nature of stays in Canada, an officer cannot disregard that evidence and base a refusal on a materially mistaken understanding of the applicant’s plans.

Background

Mr. Aslanyan worked as a Deputy Director in Moscow, where he also supported his dependent mother. His wife and son were in Canada while his wife studied. He requested an open work permit covering the remaining period of his wife’s studies, but explained that he intended to use it only when visiting Canada during vacation periods.

His evidence included an employment letter confirming full-time employment since 2009 and 28 days of paid vacation, evidence concerning his mother’s health and caregiving needs, letters from his wife and friends, and his own explanation that he had no immigration intention and would return to Russia.

The officer nevertheless interpreted the requested work permit dates as showing an intention to reside in Canada for approximately two years. The officer also inferred that Mr. Aslanyan’s employer was unaware of his supposed plan to live in Canada.

Court Findings

• Officer Misunderstood the Intended Stay

The Court found that the application, read as a whole, consistently indicated that Mr. Aslanyan intended to remain employed and resident in Russia and visit Canada only periodically. Although the application listed employment dates extending to the expiry of his wife’s study permit, those dates represented the overall period for which authorization was requested, not continuous residence in Canada.

• Material Evidence Was Overlooked

The officer’s brief GCMS notes did not address the supporting evidence explaining Mr. Aslanyan’s intentions. His employment, dependent mother, approved vacation period, and supporting letters all contradicted the finding that he planned to reside in Canada for two years. The Court held that ignoring or overlooking this evidence produced a material factual error.

• Employer Inference Was Unsupported

The officer reasoned that the employer was probably unaware that Mr. Aslanyan wished to reside in Canada for two years because the employment letter granted only 28 days of leave. The Court found that the evidence did not support this belief. Rather, the limited vacation period was consistent with Mr. Aslanyan’s stated plan to make short visits while retaining his employment in Russia.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, set aside the work permit refusal, and remitted the application to a different officer for redetermination. No question of general importance was certified, and no costs were ordered.

Case Citation:

Aslanyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 133 (CanLII)