Case: Ullah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 70 Failure to Properly Assess Work Experience and Family Ties Leads to LMIA Work Permit Refusal Being Unreasonable

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of an employer-specific work permit application submitted under the Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) stream. The visa officer refused the application after finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could perform the proposed employment and was not satisfied that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to meaningfully engage with evidence regarding the applicant’s work experience, employment circumstances, and family ties in Pakistan. The Court concluded that the decision was unreasonable because the officer relied on unsupported assumptions and failed to provide a rational connection between the evidence and the refusal.

Key Principle

A visa officer assessing a work permit application must consider the evidence provided by the applicant in light of the applicable legal requirements, including the requirements of the occupation identified in the LMIA and National Occupational Classification (NOC). An officer cannot impose additional evidentiary requirements that are not supported by the regulatory framework. Where an applicant provides evidence of relevant work experience and ties to their home country, the officer must meaningfully address that evidence before refusing the application.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan in his early 20s, applied for an employer-specific work permit to work as a rug sewer for Minster Interiors Inc. in Canada. The employer had obtained a positive LMIA for the position, which was for a two-year period.

The applicant’s application included evidence that he had worked as a rug and carpet sewer in Pakistan for SBR Enterprises. He provided a reference letter from his employer confirming his employment, training, duties, and experience. The applicant also explained that he was paid in cash. He submitted additional evidence, including bank statements showing savings and documents relating to land ownership in Pakistan.

The officer refused the application after finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that he could perform the proposed work under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The officer also concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient ties to Pakistan to establish that he would leave Canada after his authorized stay.

The officer gave less weight to the applicant’s employment reference letter because it was not supported by payslips or matching bank deposits. The officer also questioned the source of the applicant’s savings and found that the applicant’s lack of dependents and limited financial establishment reduced his incentive to return to Pakistan.

Court Findings

• Failure to Properly Assess Work Experience

The Court found that the officer’s assessment of the applicant’s ability to perform the work was unreasonable. The officer focused on the lack of payslips and bank deposits but failed to explain why the applicant’s documented employment experience was insufficient.

The Court noted that the applicant had approximately 2.5 years of experience as a rug sewing apprentice and rug sewer, which exceeded the experience requirements for the occupation. The officer did not explain why the employer’s reference letter, the applicant’s training, and his stated work history were insufficient to establish that he could perform the job.

• Officer Applied Unsupported Requirements

The Court held that the officer effectively imposed additional requirements by expecting proof of salary payments through payslips or bank deposits, despite the applicant explaining that he was paid in cash. The absence of financial records confirming cash payments did not reasonably undermine the applicant’s work experience, particularly where his credibility was not challenged.

• Failure to Consider Family and Employment Ties

The Court also found that the officer incorrectly stated that the applicant did not have significant family ties outside Canada. The applicant’s immediate family, including his parents and siblings, lived in Pakistan. The officer failed to consider these ties when assessing whether the applicant had incentives to return.

The officer also failed to address evidence that the applicant’s employer in Pakistan had granted him leave and intended to rehire him upon his return at a higher salary. This evidence was directly relevant to the applicant’s economic ties to Pakistan.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and returned the matter to a different IRCC officer for reconsideration. The applicant was provided an opportunity to update his application before a new decision was made.

Case Citation: Ullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 70 (CanLII)