The Federal Court reviewed the
refusal of a temporary work permit and visa application submitted by an Indian
citizen seeking employment in Canada.
The Court overturned the refusal
because the immigration officer failed to adequately consider significant
evidence demonstrating the applicant’s ties to India and his intention to leave
Canada after his authorized stay.
Key Principle
Under paragraph 20(1)(b) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and paragraph 200(1)(b) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), temporary residents must
establish that they will leave Canada when their authorized stay expires.
An officer cannot reasonably
dismiss an applicant’s home-country ties without meaningfully considering
evidence of ongoing family relationships, property ownership, financial assets
and previous immigration compliance.
An applicant’s extended
employment abroad does not automatically establish weak connections to their
country of citizenship.
Background
Lamber Singh, an Indian citizen,
had been legally employed as a construction worker in Singapore since 2009.
In November 2016, he received a
two-year employment offer as a general farm worker in Chilliwack, British
Columbia, supported by a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).
He subsequently applied for a
work permit and temporary resident visa.
In February 2017, the officer
refused his application, questioning whether he would leave Canada after two
years.
The officer relied on his lengthy
absence from India, proposed occupational change and limited employment
prospects in India.
Mr. Singh requested
reconsideration and provided additional information concerning his visits to
India and previous agricultural employment. However, the officer maintained the
refusal.
Court Findings
The Federal Court found that the
officer had unreasonably discounted important evidence.
Mr. Singh regularly visited his
wife and three daughters in India, often for extended periods. He also had
other relatives in India and no family members in Canada.
Additionally, he possessed
substantial savings, a family home, a vehicle, agricultural equipment and land
transferred to him by his father.
The officer questioned his
ownership of the land despite a deed clearly establishing that the property had
been transferred exclusively to him.
The Court also noted his history
of complying with Singapore’s immigration laws.
Furthermore, his proposed move
from construction to agricultural employment was understandable because he had
previously worked in agriculture in India.
The officer failed to adequately
address these circumstances or explain why they did not establish meaningful
ties to India.
Outcome
The Federal Court allowed
judicial review, set aside the refusal and returned the application to a
different visa officer for reconsideration.
The Court did not order the
issuance of a work permit.
No question of general importance
was certified.
Case
Citation:
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 894 CanLII
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad Abrar (Barrister and Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and Statistics Analyst
