Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1520 : TRP and Work Permit Refusal Upheld After Applicant Failed to Demonstrate Exceptional Circumstances Justifying Temporary Resident Permit Relief

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Gurvir Singh’s Temporary Resident Permit (TRP) and work permit applications. The applicant, a citizen of India, had remained in Canada after stopping his studies and working without authorization. He sought a TRP to overcome his inadmissibility and obtain authorization to work as a mushroom harvester. The Court dismissed the judicial review, finding that the officer reasonably concluded a TRP was not justified because the applicant had not demonstrated why he could not leave Canada and apply through the regular immigration process.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that TRPs are exceptional discretionary measures intended to address situations where strict application of immigration rules would create hardship. Applicants bear the burden of demonstrating why a TRP is justified. Officers may reasonably refuse a TRP where an applicant has other available immigration options and fails to show why those alternatives would create significant difficulty.

Background

The applicant arrived in Canada in 2020 on a study permit. He began studying in 2021 but stopped attending classes in November 2021. He believed he could continue working until his study permit expired in March 2023, but because he was no longer studying, he breached the conditions of his permit by working without authorization.

The applicant remained in Canada after his authorized stay ended. He later received a job offer as a mushroom harvester and applied for a TRP and work permit from within Canada in May 2023.

IRCC refused both applications in December 2023. The officer found the applicant inadmissible because he failed to maintain his student status, worked without authorization, and overstayed his visa. The officer was also not satisfied that the circumstances justified issuing a TRP.

Court Findings

• TRP Decision Was Within Officer’s Discretion

The Court held that TRPs provide an exception to normal immigration requirements and must be issued cautiously. The officer was entitled to consider whether the applicant had alternative options, including leaving Canada and applying for a new permit and visa from India.

The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence explaining why he could not use that regular immigration pathway.

• Officer Properly Considered TRP Remedy

The applicant argued that the officer misunderstood the purpose of a TRP by focusing on restoration of status and inadmissibility. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the officer correctly considered section 24 of IRPA and determined that a TRP was not justified.

The reference to restoration and inadmissibility did not demonstrate confusion because those factors are relevant when assessing whether exceptional relief should be granted.

• Reasons Were Adequate

The Court found that the officer’s reasons were sufficient. The decision explained that the applicant could return to India to regularize his status and had not demonstrated hardship preventing him from doing so.

The Court also rejected the argument that the officer ignored personal circumstances, including pandemic-related stress and the applicant’s desire to work in Canada. The officer was not required to accept those circumstances as justification for exceptional relief.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The Court found that the officer reasonably refused the TRP and work permit applications because the applicant failed to establish that exceptional relief was warranted. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1520 (CanLII)