Famugbode v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 348 : LMIA-Exempt Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Reused a Previously Assigned LMIA-Exemption Number Without a New Employer Compliance Fee

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of the refusal of an LMIA-exempt work permit and associated restoration application. The Applicant had relied on an LMIA-exemption number that had already been used for a previous work permit application and did not provide a new employer compliance fee or new exemption number. The Court found that the officer correctly applied paragraph 200(3)(f.1) of the IRPR and had no discretion to issue the work permit in the circumstances. Pasted text

Key Principle

For an LMIA-exempt work permit application, the employer must provide the required offer-of-employment information and employer compliance fee before the work permit application is submitted. An LMIA-exemption number associated with a previously refused application cannot simply be reused for a subsequent application. Where these mandatory requirements are not satisfied, an officer may refuse the application without first providing an opportunity to correct the deficiency.

Background

The Applicant previously applied for an LMIA-exempt work permit under the International Mobility Program using exemption code C51 for charitable work. The employer submitted the required employer compliance fee and obtained exemption number A0924728.

The Applicant subsequently submitted a new LMIA-exempt work permit application together with an application to restore his temporary resident status. However, he relied on the same exemption number from the previous application and did not submit a new fee or new LMIA-exemption number.

The officer refused the work permit and restoration applications under paragraph 200(3)(f.1) of the IRPR, finding that the exemption number was already linked to the previous application and that the current application lacked the required new number and employer compliance fee. Pasted text

The refusal letter also incorrectly stated that the Applicant had failed to comply with a biometrics requirement, even though his biometrics remained valid. Pasted text

Court Findings

• A new LMIA-exemption number and compliance fee were mandatory

The Court relied on the IRCC Guideline explaining that an offer-of-employment number is generated through the Employer Portal and matched to a specific work permit application. Once a decision has been made on that application, the same number cannot be reused. A subsequent work permit application requires a new offer of employment and the applicable compliance fee. Pasted text

• Officer had no discretion to overlook the deficiency

The Court found that the officer simply applied the mandatory requirements of paragraph 200(3)(f.1) to undisputed facts. Because the Applicant had reused the previous exemption number and had not provided a new compliance fee, the regulatory requirements were not met. The officer therefore had no discretion to issue the work permit despite the Applicant’s circumstances.

• Incorrect biometrics reference was not determinative

The Court accepted that the officer incorrectly referred to invalid or missing biometrics. However, this error did not affect the outcome because the failure to provide the new exemption number and compliance fee independently required refusal. Even if the officer had correctly recognized that the Applicant’s biometrics remained valid, the work permit could not have been issued. Pasted text

• No procedural fairness duty to warn about mandatory deficiencies

The Court held that procedural fairness did not require the officer to notify the Applicant or employer that the exemption number and compliance fee were deficient. Work permit applicants bear the responsibility of satisfying the applicable statutory requirements. An officer is generally not required to alert an applicant to shortcomings in evidence where the application simply fails to meet mandatory regulatory criteria. Pasted text

Outcome

The judicial review application was dismissed. The Court found the refusal reasonable and procedurally fair. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Famugbode v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 348 (CanLII)