Bhatti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1757 : Officer’s Experience Assessment Found Unreasonable Without Clear Justification

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Anantkumar Bhatti’s LMIA-based work permit for a hairstylist position. The officer concluded that he had not demonstrated sufficient experience to perform the proposed work. The Court found the decision unreasonable and procedurally unfair because central evidence supporting his hairstyling experience was effectively discounted without adequate explanation.

Key Principle

When an applicant submits significant evidence directly addressing a disputed qualification, an officer must explain why that evidence is insufficient. Merely acknowledging important evidence before reaching the opposite conclusion may render the decision unreasonable and, where credibility is implicitly questioned without notice, procedurally unfair.

Background

The applicant obtained a positive LMIA for a hairstylist position requiring two to three years of experience but no formal training. He submitted a résumé, a salon letter confirming more than ten years of work and ownership, sworn client affidavits, training certificates, and IELTS results. The officer nevertheless concluded that he had not demonstrated hairstylist experience.

Court Findings

• Sworn Client Affidavits Were Improperly Discounted

The officer observed that the affidavits used similar language and were sworn on the same day but did not explain why those facts diminished their reliability or weight. The Court emphasized that they were uncontradicted sworn statements from third-party clients confirming the applicant’s hairstyling work. In the absence of a reason to doubt them, they were entitled to a presumption of truthfulness and could not simply be noted and disregarded.

• Salon Letter Directly Supported the Required Experience

The salon letter confirmed that the applicant was a partner who had worked there for more than ten years and described duties including haircuts, colouring, bleaching, treatments, styling, shampooing, and conditioning. Although the officer acknowledged his ownership interest, the reasons did not explain what weight was given to this evidence or why it failed to establish the required occupational experience.

• Insufficiency Finding Required a Rational Explanation

The officer also acknowledged the applicant’s training certificates and accepted that practical experience could substitute for formal education. Despite this, the officer simply concluded that the applicant lacked sufficient hairstylist experience. The Court held that because the affidavits and salon letter were central to the disputed qualification, the officer’s obligation to explain why they were insufficient was correspondingly greater.

• Treatment of the Evidence Created a Veiled Credibility Concern

The Court found that unexplained findings of insufficient evidence can conceal adverse credibility determinations. Here, the officer effectively rejected sworn third-party evidence and detailed employment evidence without identifying a substantive deficiency. If the officer doubted the truthfulness of that material, procedural fairness required that the applicant be notified of the concern and given an opportunity to respond.

• Language Concerns Could Not Preserve the Refusal

The respondent argued that insufficient language ability could independently justify refusal. The Court accepted that language might, in another case, provide a standalone basis, but that was not the decision actually made. Because the officer relied on both language ability and occupational experience, the unreasonable treatment of the experience evidence undermined the decision as a whole.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the work permit refusal, and remitted the application to a different visa officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Bhatti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1757 (CanLII)