Ibitayo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 426 : Work Permit and Study Permit Applications Remanded Over Procedural Fairness Concerns

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Ibikunle Emmanuel Ibitayo’s LMIA-exempt work permit application to serve as an Associate Pastor in British Columbia. His three children’s study permit applications were also refused because they depended on the approval of his work permit. The officer concluded that he had not shown he could adequately perform the proposed pastoral work. The Court granted judicial review because the officer implicitly questioned the truthfulness of his employment evidence without giving him an opportunity to respond.

Key Principle

Work permit applicants are generally owed a low level of procedural fairness, and officers do not have to request clarification or permit applicants to strengthen insufficient applications. However, when an officer doubts the credibility, authenticity, or truthfulness of submitted documents or representations, the applicant must be notified and given a meaningful opportunity to respond. An officer cannot characterize concerns as evidentiary insufficiency when the reasoning effectively rejects the truth of corroborating employment evidence.

Background

The applicant was a Nigerian citizen working as a Pastor in Charge of Parish for the Redeemed Christian Church of God in Dubai. He had served in pastoral positions in the United Arab Emirates since 2013.

A Canadian branch of the church offered him an Associate Pastor position in New Westminster, British Columbia, under the LMIA-exempt category for religious or charitable work.

His application included theological and missions diplomas, ordination certificates, letters confirming his pastoral positions and duties, an appointment letter, payslips, a résumé, and documents concerning the Canadian church.

The officer refused the application under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The GCMS notes stated that the reference letters lacked corroboration, the applicant had not shown authorization to work as a religious worker in the UAE, his employment history was unclear because other employment appeared in the record, and his religious certificates lacked transcripts or program-length information.

Court Findings

• Some Concerns Went Beyond Evidentiary Sufficiency

The concern about missing transcripts and program details related to the sufficiency of the evidence. However, the other concerns suggested that the officer doubted whether the applicant had genuinely worked as a pastor in the UAE.

• Supporting Documents Were Implicitly Disbelieved

The officer gave little weight to pastoral reference letters, appointment records, and other employment evidence because of the absence of additional corroboration and work authorization. In substance, this amounted to questioning the veracity of the documents and the applicant’s representations.

• Applicant Was Denied an Opportunity to Respond

The applicant was never advised that the officer doubted his pastoral employment history or the authenticity of the supporting evidence. Procedural fairness required that he be allowed to address those concerns before refusal.

• Minister Could Not Supply a New Explanation

The Minister suggested that the officer may have suspected unauthorized work in the UAE. The Court rejected this explanation because it did not appear in the officer’s reasons and could not be added afterward.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the father’s work permit refusal and the children’s study permit refusals, and returned all applications to another officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Ibitayo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 426 (CanLII)