Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 691 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Where Officer Failed to Explain Family-Tie and Employment Concerns

The Federal Court reviewed Simranpreet Singh’s refusal of a work permit for a long-haul truck driver position. The officer was not satisfied that he would leave Canada because of family ties and was also not satisfied that he could perform the proposed work. The Court found the decision unreasonable because the family-tie finding lacked an evidentiary basis and the work-experience concern was inadequately explained.

Key Principle

A work permit refusal must be grounded in the evidence and supported by intelligible reasons. An officer cannot rely on family ties that do not exist or use requests for employment corroboration without explaining how those documents relate to the applicant’s ability to perform the proposed work. The Court will not supply missing reasons after the fact.

Background

The applicant had several years of experience as a heavy truck driver in the UAE and submitted three employment reference letters and a UAE heavy-vehicle driving licence. He received a Canadian job offer as a long-haul truck driver. The officer questioned whether he would leave Canada and whether he could adequately perform the work, including because of his IELTS reading score of 4.5.

Court Findings

• Family-Tie Finding Had No Evidentiary Foundation

The officer cited family ties in Canada and the applicant’s country of residence. The Court found no evidence of family ties in Canada. His spouse, child, and parents lived in India. The officer also failed to identify whether “country of residence” meant India, the UAE, or another country. The GCMS notes did not explain the conclusion, making the finding unreasonable.

• Work-Experience Concern Was Not Properly Explained

The officer acknowledged the UAE licence and employment letters but referred to missing payslips, salary deposits, and a UAE visa showing his profession. The Court found that these documents could corroborate employment, but did not explain whether he could perform long-haul truck-driving duties. The reasons lacked a rational connection between the evidence requested and the statutory concern.

• Respondent Could Not Backfill the Reasons

The Minister argued that the reference letters lacked sufficient detail about the applicant’s duties and NOC alignment. The Court noted that this was not the officer’s stated rationale. The Respondent could not provide new reasons to repair the deficient decision.

• Corroboration Request Amounted to a Veiled Credibility Finding

Although the officer did not expressly make a credibility finding, the demand for employment corroboration suggested doubt about whether the applicant actually held the claimed positions. The Court characterized this as tantamount to a veiled credibility finding. The officer did not transparently explain the concern or connect it to the ability-to-perform requirement.

• IELTS Concern Was Reasonably Explained

The Court accepted the language concern. The officer explained that a 4.5 IELTS reading score could affect the applicant’s ability to perform the job because he would need to read driving manuals, rules, and forms. The Court found these reasons sufficient, while directing the new officer to consider the totality of the documentation and overall IELTS score.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the February 12, 2020 decision, and remitted the matter to a different visa officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 691 (CanLII)