Ekpenyong v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2019 FC 1245 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Treated No Travel History as Negative and Failed to Engage with Employment and Financial Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a temporary work permit application for a Nigerian childcare worker who had obtained a positive LMIA and a two-year employment contract as an in-home caregiver in Alberta.

The officer refused the application based on the applicant’s lack of travel history, limited employment prospects in Nigeria, and financial circumstances.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to meaningfully engage with evidence of the applicant’s stable employment history, assessed her Nigerian salary without context, failed to account for the fact that she already had paid employment and accommodation arranged in Canada, and improperly treated her lack of travel history as a negative factor.

Key Principle

A visa officer may consider an applicant’s employment, finances, travel history, and incentives to leave Canada when assessing a temporary work permit application.

However, absence of previous travel history should generally be treated as a neutral factor, not as evidence that the applicant will overstay.

Further, where an officer relies heavily on limited employment prospects or financial circumstances, the reasons should meaningfully address evidence that directly bears on those findings, including existing employment, professional experience, wages in local context, and confirmed Canadian employment.

Background

The applicant was a Nigerian citizen who had worked as a childcare attendant from 2015 to 2018.

She entered into an employment contract to work as an in-home caregiver for two young children in Fort McMurray, Alberta. The contract provided for 44 hours of work per week, and the employer subsequently obtained a positive LMIA.

The applicant then applied for a temporary work permit.

The visa officer refused the application, stating that the applicant had not demonstrated that she would leave Canada because of her travel history, limited employment prospects in Nigeria, and personal assets and financial status.

Court Findings

The Court found several problems with the officer’s analysis.

First, although the officer mentioned the applicant’s childcare employment in Nigeria, there was no meaningful assessment of her more than three years of experience, training certificates, or positive employer recommendation. Those factors were directly relevant to the conclusion that she had limited employment prospects in Nigeria.

Second, the officer referred to the applicant earning approximately CAD $75 per month in Nigeria but provided no context concerning the cost of living or whether that salary was reasonable in her local circumstances. A numerical comparison with Canadian wages, without context, did not sufficiently explain why she lacked economic establishment in Nigeria.

Third, the officer relied on the applicant’s limited funds without addressing that she was coming to Canada with a confirmed job paying approximately $598 per week, together with room and board. The Court found that the officer needed to explain why her financial circumstances remained problematic given that employment arrangement.

Fourth, and importantly, the Court held that lack of previous travel history should not have been treated negatively. For a work permit applicant who had never travelled internationally, the absence of travel history was a neutral consideration rather than evidence that she would fail to leave Canada.

The Court also noted that the refusal letter incorrectly referred to subsection 216(1), which concerns study permits, instead of the work permit provisions. Although this mistake alone was not fatal, it reinforced the impression that the officer had relied too mechanically on a template.

The applicant’s procedural fairness argument was rejected. Since the officer’s concerns arose from the sufficiency of the application itself and did not involve credibility, extrinsic evidence, or improper generalizations, there was no duty to contact her before refusing the application.

Outcome

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the work permit refusal, and remitted the matter to a different visa officer for redetermination.

Case Citation:

Ekpenyong v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2019 FC 1245 CanLII