Introduction
The
Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a restoration of temporary resident
status application filed by an international student who sought to restore his
status directly as a worker after losing his temporary resident status. The
immigration officer refused the application on the basis that the restoration
provisions require applicants to first restore the status they previously held
before seeking a different authorization. The Court dismissed the judicial
review, finding that the officer’s interpretation of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) was reasonable and consistent with IRCC’s
published guidance.
Key
Principle
Applicants
seeking restoration of temporary resident status under subsection 182(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations must first restore
the same temporary resident authorization they held immediately before
losing status. Restoration is not a mechanism to obtain a new
immigration authorization, such as changing directly from student status to
worker status. Once status has been restored, applicants may then apply for a
different permit if they otherwise meet the program requirements.
Background
The
applicant entered Canada as an international student and later applied for an
employer-specific work permit after his study permit expired. Following the
refusal of the work permit, he applied to restore his temporary resident status
but requested restoration directly as a worker rather than as a student. He
argued that subsection 182(1) of the IRPR permitted restoration into the status
he wished to obtain and relied on earlier Federal Court decisions in support of
his position.
The
officer refused the application, relying on IRCC’s operational guidance stating
that restoration is available only to the temporary resident authorization held
immediately before status was lost.
Court Findings
- Restoration Must Be to the Previous Authorization
Justice
Sadrehashemi held that the officer reasonably interpreted subsection 182(1) of
the IRPR. The Court found that both IRCC’s internal program delivery
instructions and publicly available guidance consistently require applicants to
restore their previous authorization before applying for a different permit.
The applicant had not demonstrated that this interpretation was inconsistent
with the text, context, or purpose of the Regulations.
- Earlier Cases Did Not Apply
The
Court rejected the applicant’s reliance on Udobong and Abubacker,
explaining that those cases involved different factual circumstances, including
applications connected to the Post-Graduation Work Permit program. They did not
establish that a person may restore directly into a new immigration status
never previously held.
- No Procedural Fairness Breach
The
Court also found that the officer was not required to issue a procedural
fairness letter before refusing the application. The basis for refusal arose
directly from the restoration requirements published by IRCC, and there were no
new credibility concerns or undisclosed issues requiring the applicant to be
given an additional opportunity to respond.
Outcome
The
Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, upholding the
refusal of the restoration application and confirming that applicants must
first restore the temporary resident authorization they previously held before
seeking a different immigration status.
Case Citation: Kohli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 381 (CanLII)
