The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of work permit
application. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave
Canada at the end of his authorized stay, relying on his previous overstay and
insufficient establishment abroad. The Court granted judicial review because
the officer failed to address the applicant’s explanation for the overstay and
overlooked evidence that he left Canada only three days after learning that his
earlier work permit application had been refused.
Key Principle
A previous immigration violation may be relevant when
assessing whether an applicant will comply with future temporary status, but
the officer must consider the circumstances surrounding the violation. Where an
applicant explains that an overstay resulted from a mistaken belief about
status, restoration, or representative advice, and promptly leaves Canada after
learning of a refusal, the officer must meaningfully assess that evidence
before concluding that future non-compliance is likely. Material evidence
pointing directly against the refusal conclusion cannot be ignored.
Background
The applicant entered Canada as a visitor and was authorized
to remain until October 8, 2022. He stayed beyond that date.
After receiving a job offer supported by a positive Labour
Market Impact Assessment, he submitted a work permit application with a
restoration fee. The application was refused because he was in Canada without
legal status.
The applicant returned abroad three days after receiving the
refusal and then submitted a new work permit application from outside Canada.
He explained that he had miscalculated the expiry date of
his visitor status and believed, based on his representative’s advice, that he
could remain in Canada while the restoration and work permit application was
being processed.
Court Findings
• Overstay Was Considered Without Context
The officer relied almost entirely on the applicant’s
previous non-compliance without addressing his explanation for how it occurred.
• Representative Advice Was Relevant
Although incorrect advice did not create valid status, it
remained relevant to whether the overstay was deliberate and whether the
applicant intended to disregard Canadian immigration law.
• Prompt Departure Was Overlooked
The applicant left Canada only three days after learning
that his earlier application had been refused.
• Evidence Supported Future Compliance
The applicant’s voluntary and immediate departure supported,
rather than undermined, his assertion that he would leave Canada when required.
• Reasons Were Not Transparent or Justified
Even under the minimal reasons generally required for
temporary applications, the officer had to address material evidence that
directly contradicted the refusal conclusion.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned the
work permit application to a different officer for redetermination. No question
was certified.
Case Citation:
Ferra v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 254 (CanLII)
Written by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst
