Puyda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 82 : Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Prove Required English Proficiency

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Roman Puyda’s LMIA-based work permit for an Industrial Products Designer position. The officer found that he had not demonstrated the English proficiency required to perform duties that included creating training materials. The Court held that this was a reasonable basis for refusal.

Key Principle

A work permit applicant bears the burden of proving that they can perform the proposed employment. Where English is an express job requirement and the duties involve written or verbal communication, an officer may require objective evidence of language ability and is not required to infer proficiency from an English-language résumé or the existence of a job offer.

Background

The applicant had significant elevator-industry experience and received a positive LMIA and job offer from Hybrid Elevator Inc. The position required English and included training staff and creating installation reference guides. His résumé stated “Intermediate” English, but no objective language test results were submitted despite his application indicating that he had taken a designated English test.

Court Findings

• English Résumé Was Not Objective Proof

The Court found it reasonable not to treat the English-language résumé as proof of proficiency. Nothing established that the applicant prepared it without assistance, and the statement that his English was “Intermediate” was imprecise and unsupported. It also did not demonstrate the verbal English needed for the position.

• Job Offer Did Not Establish Language Ability

The applicant argued that the employer’s willingness to hire him implied that his English was sufficient. The Court rejected this because the offer did not mention his language skills or show that the employer had assessed them. Nothing in the record contradicted the LMIA requirement for English.

• Officer Could Independently Assess Job Requirements

The Court emphasized that a visa officer is not bound by an employer’s view of an applicant’s language ability. The job duties themselves required creating training materials and assisting with employee training, which reasonably supported the officer’s conclusion that meaningful English proficiency was necessary.

• Objective Language Evidence Was Missing

The application contained no objective evidence demonstrating that the applicant possessed the required English skills. This was particularly significant because the application form indicated that he had taken a designated English-language test, yet the results were not provided. The officer’s conclusion was therefore reasonably supported.

• Officer Did Not Need to Specify an Exact English Level

The applicant argued that the refusal was unintelligible because the officer did not state what precise level of English would have been sufficient. The Court disagreed. The officer’s task was to determine whether the submitted evidence established the ability to perform the stated duties, not to create a numerical language threshold where the application contained no objective proof of proficiency.

• Other Qualification Issues Did Not Need Determination

Because the English-language finding independently justified refusal, the Court did not decide whether concerns about the applicant’s education or lack of a creative portfolio were also reasonable. A single reasonable and sufficient ground was enough to uphold the work permit refusal.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review and upheld the work permit refusal. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Puyda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 82 (CanLII)