Kamikawa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 873 : Work Permit Denial Overturned After Failure to Address Applicant’s Explanations

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Kaho Kamikawa’s work permit application. The officer was not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay, relying on her previous overstay, limited employment prospects, and weak financial establishment. The Court granted judicial review because the officer did not meaningfully address the applicant’s explanation for remaining in Canada, overlooked her family ties, and appeared to raise an undeclared credibility concern about possible unauthorized work.

Key Principle

An officer assessing temporary intent must meaningfully engage with the applicant’s central explanations for past non-compliance. Where an applicant attributes an overstay to lack of proper advice, pandemic-related travel restrictions, unaffordable return costs, and a mistaken belief that she had to remain pending an application, the officer must explain why those circumstances remain insufficient. Strong family ties must also be considered, and an officer should not imply unauthorized work or dishonesty without clearly identifying the concern and providing a fair opportunity to respond where required.

Background

The applicant first entered Canada as a student and later held an open work permit and two visitor records.

After her final visitor status expired, she remained in Canada while a Labour Market Impact Assessment and work permit application were being pursued. She explained that her representative did not properly advise her about restoration requirements and that she believed she had to remain while the application was pending.

She also stated that pandemic-related flight and quarantine costs made returning abroad unaffordable. After consulting legal counsel and learning that she had to leave, she departed Canada within days.

Her later work permit application was refused based on past non-compliance, weak economic ties, and limited employment prospects.

Court Findings

• Central Overstay Explanation Was Ignored

The officer did not address the applicant’s evidence concerning representative advice, restoration requirements, pandemic conditions, or travel costs.

• Prompt Departure Was Relevant

The applicant left Canada shortly after receiving proper legal advice, which was relevant to future compliance.

• Family Ties Were Overlooked

The officer did not consider that the applicant’s parents and two sisters lived abroad.

• Credibility Concern Was Not Clearly Stated

The officer questioned how the applicant supported herself and appeared to suspect unauthorized work without expressly making that finding.

• Reasons Did Not Permit Meaningful Review

The omissions prevented the Court from understanding why the applicant’s explanations were rejected and undermined confidence in the outcome.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal, and returned the work permit application to a different officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Kamikawa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 873 (CanLII)