Jain v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 109 : Study and Work Permit Applications Set Aside Due to Officer’s Failure to Provide Opportunity to Respond

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Neha Jain’s LMIA-based work permit application for employment as a food service supervisor, together with the related applications of her spouse and children. The officer questioned whether the applicant’s educational diplomas and employment documents were genuine and conducted independent internet research into the educational institution that issued her qualifications. The Court granted judicial review because the officer relied on credibility and authenticity concerns, including novel information obtained through open-source research, without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

Key Principle

A visa officer is not generally required to notify an applicant about concerns arising solely from insufficient evidence. However, procedural fairness is engaged where the officer questions the credibility, accuracy, authenticity, or genuine nature of the applicant’s documents. Where an officer independently obtains novel and significant information from internet or open-source research that the applicant could not reasonably anticipate, fairness requires that the applicant be informed of that information and provided a meaningful opportunity to challenge its accuracy, relevance, or interpretation before a refusal is made.

Background

The principal applicant received a Canadian job offer and positive Labour Market Impact Assessment for a food service supervisor position. The applicable LMIA and NOC requirements could be met through relevant college education or several years of food preparation or service experience.

She submitted certificates showing completion of a one-year diploma in commercial cookery and a one-year advanced diploma in food and beverage services. She also provided documents stating that she had worked as a food service supervisor at a hotel since August 2019.

The officer conducted an open-source search and found that the institution was allegedly unrecognized, non-accredited, founded in 2021, and not approved by a government educational authority. The officer also noted limited search results, a non-functional website, and a connection between the website and an immigration lawyer.

Regarding employment experience, the officer found that the employment documents appeared identical and created at the same time. The officer also noted the absence of bank records confirming payroll deposits.

Court Findings

• Officer Raised Credibility, Not Merely Sufficiency, Concerns

Questions about whether the institution was accredited or whether bank statements were missing could relate to evidentiary sufficiency. However, comments about the institution’s website, its connection to an immigration lawyer, and documents appearing simultaneously created directly questioned credibility and authenticity.

• Independent Research Produced Novel Information

The alleged connection between the educational institution and an immigration lawyer arose from the officer’s own research. The applicant could not reasonably have anticipated that this information would be used against her.

• Applicant Was Entitled to Respond

Because the officer’s concerns implied impropriety or fabrication, procedural fairness required notice and an opportunity to explain the institution’s legitimacy and the employment documentation.

• Related Family Decisions Were Also Affected

The spouse’s work permit and the children’s study permit and visitor visa applications depended on the principal applicant’s work permit. Those decisions could not stand once the principal refusal was set aside.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review and returned all applications to a different decision-maker for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Jain v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 109 (CanLII)