Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1566 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Consider the Applicant’s Written Explanations

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Pradeep Kumar’s open work permit application to work as an electrician in Ontario. The application was supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) from a Canadian employer. The officer refused the application based on concerns about the applicant’s ability to perform the proposed work and his temporary status in Australia. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to consider relevant information submitted in response to IRCC’s request for additional documentation.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that immigration officers must consider the evidence properly before them and provide decisions that demonstrate justification, transparency, and intelligibility under the Vavilov framework. A decision may be unreasonable where an officer fails to consider relevant information that directly responds to concerns raised during processing.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for an open work permit under section 200 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. He intended to work as an electrician in Ontario for an employer that had already obtained a positive LMIA.

At the time of the application, the applicant was a temporary resident of Australia, where his wife was studying at a university and his young son also lived with them.

During processing, IRCC requested additional information regarding the applicant’s ability to perform the electrician position, including:

• The length of training required to obtain necessary certification.
• Who would pay for the training.
• Whether the applicant would receive wages during the training period.

The applicant’s representative responded by letter dated August 18, 2024, addressing the questions raised by IRCC. However, the officer refused the application, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated that he met the requirements for an open work permit.

Court Findings

• Officer Failed to Consider Response Letter

The Court found that the officer appeared not to have considered the applicant’s August 18, 2024 response. Although the letter referred to attached documents that were not included in the record, it still provided information directly responding to IRCC’s questions.

Justice Heneghan held that IRCC’s request was for “information and/or documentation,” and the response letter provided relevant information that should have been assessed.

• Decision Lacked Proper Assessment

The Court found that failing to consider the response letter affected the reasonableness of the decision. The officer’s refusal did not demonstrate that the applicant’s explanations had been reviewed or weighed.

• New Arguments Not Considered

The Court also noted that arguments raised for the first time during the judicial review hearing could not be considered because the applicant did not include them in a further memorandum of fact and law. Parties must raise new issues through the proper procedural process.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1566 (CanLII)