Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2019 : Work Permit Refusal Set Aside as Visa Officer Failed to Properly Assess Applicant’s Medical and LMIA Evidence

Introduction

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of a work permit application submitted by an Indian citizen who previously studied in Canada and sought to transition to employment. The officer refused the application after finding that the applicant was not a genuine worker and that his purpose of travel was inconsistent with a temporary stay. The Court found that the officer relied on an incorrect understanding of the applicant’s immigration history and failed to consider relevant medical evidence explaining his academic interruption.

Key Principle

The Federal Court reaffirmed that although visa officers are not required to provide extensive reasons for temporary resident decisions, their analysis must still be based on an accurate understanding of the evidence. Where an officer relies on incorrect facts or ignores important evidence that directly explains an applicant’s circumstances, the decision may be unreasonable.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of India, entered Canada in 2019 as an international student at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. In August 2022, he was hospitalized and received medical advice to refrain from attending school temporarily. His institution later approved an authorized leave of absence from September to December 2022.

In January 2023, the applicant experienced a blood clot and did not resume classes. He later applied for a work permit to work as a Food Counter Attendant in Alberta based on an employment contract and a positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA).

IRCC issued a procedural fairness letter requesting an explanation for the applicant’s absence from studies. The applicant provided medical records, school confirmation of his authorized leave, transcripts, and supporting documents. IRCC refused the application, concluding that the applicant was not a genuine worker and that he had not demonstrated that he would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

Court Findings

• Officer Misapprehended the Timeline of Events

The Court found that the officer relied on an incorrect timeline when assessing the applicant’s credibility. The officer concluded that the applicant pursued the work permit while on medical leave because the employer’s LMIA application was submitted in July 2022.

However, the Court noted that the LMIA was submitted before the applicant’s hospitalization and medical issues. The applicant only entered into an employment contract more than a year later. The officer’s reliance on the LMIA submission date, rather than the date of the work permit application, was not justified by the evidence.

• Medical Evidence Was Not Properly Considered

The Court also found that the officer failed to meaningfully address the medical evidence explaining why the applicant did not return to studies in early 2023. Although the officer acknowledged some aspects of the applicant’s academic history, the decision did not engage with the evidence explaining his absence.

• Finding That Applicant Was Not a Genuine Worker Was Unreasonable

The Court held that the incorrect factual assumptions and failure to consider relevant evidence were central to the refusal decision. Since these errors formed the basis of the finding that the applicant was not a genuine worker, the decision lacked the rational analysis required under Vavilov.

 Outcome

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the refusal decision, and remitted the matter to a different decision-maker for redetermination. The Court concluded that the officer significantly misunderstood the factual record and failed to address important evidence supporting the applicant’s circumstances. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 2019 (CanLII)