Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 381 : Refusal Upheld Where Officer Reasonably Questioned Whether Applicant Had Genuine Plumbing Experience

Davinder Kumar Sharma sought judicial review after a visa officer refused his application to work in Canada as a plumber under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. Despite a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment and job offer, the officer was not satisfied that Sharma had actually worked as a plumber in India and therefore doubted his ability to perform the proposed work. The Federal Court upheld the refusal, finding the officer’s reasoning coherent and procedurally fair.

Key Principle

A positive LMIA does not determine whether a work permit must be issued. Visa officers must independently assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe an applicant cannot perform the proposed work under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the IRPR. Where the applicant relies on claimed foreign employment to demonstrate ability, an officer may examine whether that employment is genuine. Inconsistencies and deficient employment evidence may reasonably support refusal even where the LMIA itself does not require specific prior experience.

Background

Sharma received an offer from DMS Hydronic Mechanical Systems Ltd. in British Columbia and a positive LMIA for employment as a plumber. His application relied on alleged plumbing employment with GST Industries in India.

The officer contacted GST. Its spokesperson initially omitted Sharma when listing employees and named him only after the officer referred to Sharma’s employment letter. At Sharma’s interview, concerns arose about inconsistent employee lists, staged-looking plumbing photographs, irregular cheque payments, missing payment periods, lack of tax and banking evidence, and discrepancies concerning another plumber named Balwinder Singh.

The officer concluded that Sharma had not credibly established his claimed employment and was therefore not satisfied he could adequately perform the Canadian plumbing job.

Court Findings

• Officer Could Independently Assess Ability to Perform the Work

The Court confirmed that a positive LMIA is a prerequisite, not a binding determination of an applicant’s ability. Under paragraph 200(3)(a), the officer independently assesses whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the foreign national cannot perform the employment.

• Genuine Employment Experience Was Relevant

Sharma argued that the LMIA imposed no specific work-experience requirement and that the officer improperly created an additional benchmark. The Court disagreed. Unlike Sevilla, the officer did not invent a minimum-experience requirement. The issue was whether Sharma’s claimed plumbing employment was genuine. It was reasonably open to the officer to treat insufficient evidence of actual work in the occupation as relevant to whether Sharma could perform that work in Canada.

• Interview and Bias Arguments Failed

The officer gave Sharma an interview and an opportunity to address the employment concerns. Questions concerning his immigration representative, including comments about possible “underhanded activities,” did not establish bias. Probing or unpleasant questioning does not itself demonstrate a closed mind, and Sharma produced no material evidence meeting the high threshold for reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court also emphasized that visa officers generally have no obligation to repair deficient applications, provide a running score, or repeatedly offer applicants opportunities to answer concerns arising from their own evidence.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application without costs. It found the work permit refusal reasonable and the process fair, with no reasonable apprehension of bias. No serious question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 381 (CanLII)