Introduction
The Federal Court
considered whether an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
officer reasonably refused to process a Labour Market Impact Assessment
(LMIA)-based work permit application under Ministerial Instructions governing
caregiver work permits. The applicant had simultaneously applied for
restoration of her temporary resident status after her work permit had expired.
The Court held that the officer failed to meaningfully consider the restoration
request and its interaction with the applicable Ministerial Instructions. As a
result, the refusal decision was found to be unreasonable and was set aside.
Key Principle
The Federal Court
held that where an applicant seeks restoration of temporary resident status
under subsection 182(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Regulations, an officer must meaningfully consider how that request affects
the application of any Ministerial Instructions relied upon to refuse
processing. A failure to address this central issue renders the decision
unintelligible and unreasonable.
Background
The applicant, a
citizen of the Philippines, previously worked in Quebec as an in-home caregiver
under an LMIA-based work permit that expired in October 2024. Within the 90-day
restoration period prescribed by the Regulations, she applied for a new LMIA-based
work permit with a different employer in Ontario. In her application, she
expressly requested both restoration of her status as a worker and the issuance
of a new work permit.
IRCC refused to
process the application under Ministerial Instructions that prohibit processing
certain caregiver work permit applications where the applicant does not
currently hold a valid work permit. The applicant sought judicial review,
arguing that the officer failed to consider whether her request for restoration
of status affected the applicability of those Instructions.
Court Findings
• Restoration
Request Required Meaningful Consideration
The Court found
that the applicant’s request for restoration of status was a central component
of her application. Although the parties disagreed on the proper interpretation
of the Ministerial Instructions and subsection 182(1) of the Regulations, the officer
failed to engage with that issue altogether.
• No Analysis
of the Interaction Between the Regulations and Ministerial Instructions
Justice Southcott
emphasized that the Court was not deciding whether restoration of status
ultimately exempted the applicant from the refusal-to-process provisions.
Rather, the determinative issue was that the officer’s reasons contained no
analysis of how the restoration request affected the application of the
Ministerial Instructions. The absence of any reasoning made the decision
unintelligible under the principles established in Vavilov.
• Failure to
Address a Central Issue Rendered the Decision Unreasonable
The Court held
that where a legal issue is necessarily engaged by the facts before the
decision-maker, the officer must demonstrate meaningful consideration of that
issue. Simply citing the Ministerial Instructions without addressing the
restoration request was insufficient to justify the refusal.
Outcome
The Federal Court
granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal decision,
and remitted the matter to a different IRCC officer for redetermination. The
Court declined to interpret the interaction between the Ministerial
Instructions and the restoration provisions, leaving that issue for proper
consideration during the new assessment. No question was certified for appeal.
Case Citation: Peligrino v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 341 (CanLII)
