The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Wangchen Li’s
employer-specific work permit application for an administrative officer
position in Calgary. The Officer denied the application primarily on the basis
that the applicant’s language proficiency, measured by an overall IELTS score
of 5.5, was insufficient for the duties of the position. The Court allowed
judicial review, finding that the Officer failed to adequately explain why the
applicant could not perform the work despite her bachelor’s degree in English
and the absence of any specified language level in the LMIA or employment
contract.
Key Principle
Under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations (IRPR), a work permit may not be issued if there are
reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is unable to perform the work
sought. Judicial review under section 72(1) of IRPA assesses whether a decision
is reasonable, taking into account justification, transparency, and
intelligibility (Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65). Officers must engage with relevant
evidence and explain how it informs their decision.
Background
Ms. Li, a citizen of China, received a positive LMIA and an
offer of employment in Calgary for a role requiring administrative and
communication tasks. She submitted her four-year bachelor’s degree in English
and IELTS results showing an overall band score of 5.5. Her husband and child
applied to accompany her to Canada, but these applications were dependent on
her work permit approval.
The Officer refused the application, citing two primary
concerns: the applicant’s language proficiency and weakened family ties in
China due to her family accompanying her. The Officer did not provide any
explanation linking the IELTS score to the specific job duties nor consider the
relevance of the bachelor’s degree in English.
Court Findings
• Language Assessment Unexplained
The Court held that the Officer failed to justify why an
IELTS score of 5.5 would prevent the applicant from performing the
administrative officer duties, particularly when neither the LMIA nor the
employment contract set a minimum language requirement. The absence of
reasoning linking evidence to the refusal rendered the decision unreasonable.
• Bachelor’s Degree Not Considered
The Officer did not address Ms. Li’s four-year English
degree, which was directly relevant to her ability to perform the job. Ignoring
this evidence further undermined the transparency and intelligibility of the
decision.
• Secondary Grounds Not Determinative
The alleged weakening of family ties in China was a
secondary concern and need not be addressed because the primary basis—the
language assessment—was already found unreasonable.
Outcome
The Court allowed the judicial review. The decision was set
aside and remitted for redetermination by a different officer, with the
applicant given the opportunity to provide additional submissions or evidence.
No question of general importance was certified.
Case Citation:
Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1313 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
