Haghighikafash v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1601 : C11 Entrepreneur LMAI Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Explain Lack of Significant Benefit

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Venous Haghighikafash’s LMIA-exempt work permit application under the C11 Entrepreneur or Self-Employed category. The application was refused because the officer was not satisfied that the proposed business would generate a significant economic, social, or cultural benefit to Canada. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to provide a logical explanation and incorrectly stated that important financial evidence had not been submitted.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that immigration decisions must demonstrate justification, transparency, and intelligibility under the Vavilov framework. While officers are not required to provide extensive reasons, they must show a rational connection between the evidence and the decision. Decision-makers cannot rely on reasons that are created later during judicial review to justify an unclear decision.

Background

The applicant, an Iranian citizen and certified lawyer, applied for a work permit under the C11 LMIA exemption for entrepreneurs. She proposed establishing a legal services business in Ontario focused on assisting the Iranian-Canadian community with Iranian legal matters.

The applicant submitted a detailed 75-page business plan along with financial documents, including:

• Financial statements from her Iranian law institute from 2020 to 2023.
• A TD Canada Trust bank statement showing approximately CAD $24,831.
• An Iranian bank statement showing approximately CAD $75,702.
• Evidence of land and residential property ownership in Iran.

IRCC refused the application, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the business would create significant benefits for Canada. The officer stated that the applicant failed to provide supporting Canadian bank statements and concluded that the business would not result in economic stimulus or advancement of the Canadian economy.

 Court Findings

• Officer Misunderstood Financial Evidence

The Court found that the officer incorrectly stated that the applicant failed to provide Canadian bank statements. The record clearly contained a TD Canada Trust statement showing available funds in Canada.

The Court held that this error was significant because the officer appeared to rely on the absence of financial evidence that had actually been provided.

• Reasons Did Not Explain Lack of Significant Benefit

The Court found that the officer did not explain why the proposed business failed to meet the significant benefit requirement. The decision repeated financial information from the application but did not explain how that information supported the refusal.

The officer also failed to engage with the applicant’s business plan or explain why the proposed legal services business would not provide economic, social, or cultural benefits.

• Respondent Could Not Add New Reasons

The Respondent argued that the officer may have been concerned that the funds were insufficient or that the business plan was not compelling. The Court rejected these explanations because they were not contained in the original decision.

The Court emphasized that judicial review cannot rely on speculative reasons created after the decision was made.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the March 20, 2024 refusal, and remitted the matter to a different IRCC officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Haghighikafash v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1601 (CanLII)