Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 944 : Spousal Open Work Permit Refusal Set Aside After Officer Failed to Assess Key Financial Evidence

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Jaspal Singh’s open work permit application. The applicant, a citizen of India, sought to join his spouse in Canada while she completed her studies under a valid study permit. The officer refused the application because the couple’s financial resources were considered insufficient and the officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay. The Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer failed to address evidence showing that the applicant held approximately CAD $20,000 in accessible fixed deposits.

Key Principle

Immigration officers are presumed to have considered all evidence in an application, but that presumption may be rebutted where the reasons ignore important evidence directly contradicting the central conclusion. When financial sufficiency is the decisive issue, an officer must address evidence showing the availability and accessibility of funds. The Court cannot speculate about possible concerns or accept explanations advanced later by the Minister that were not contained in the original decision.

Background

The applicant and his spouse married in India. Approximately ten months later, his spouse travelled to Canada to study under a permit valid until September 30, 2025.

In January 2024, the applicant applied for an open work permit so he could join her for the remainder of her studies. He stated that they would return to India together after she completed her diploma.

IRCC refused the application on June 7, 2024. The officer found that the applicant and his spouse had not shown consistently accessible savings or sufficient bank balances to support themselves in Canada. Based on this financial concern, the officer concluded that the purpose of the applicant’s stay was inconsistent with a temporary visit.

The application included letters from two Indian financial institutions confirming that the applicant held approximately CAD $20,000 in fixed deposits. The letters also indicated that the deposits could be withdrawn at any time without restriction.

Court Findings

• Fixed Deposit Evidence Was Ignored

The Court found that the officer’s reasons did not mention the fixed deposit letters. This evidence directly contradicted the finding that the applicant lacked consistently available funds.

Because financial sufficiency was the officer’s central reason for refusal, the evidence required meaningful consideration.

• Funds Appeared Readily Accessible

The Minister argued that the deposits might not be liquid, could contain restrictions, or might not have been purchased with the applicant’s own money. The Court rejected these explanations because they did not appear in the officer’s reasons.

The letters expressly stated that the applicant could withdraw the funds at any time without restriction, suggesting that the money was consistently available.

• Court Could Not Supply Missing Reasons

The officer could reasonably have concluded that the deposits were still insufficient, but the officer was required to explain why. The Court could not guess what concerns the officer might have had or provide reasoning after the fact.

• Boilerplate Language Was Not the Main Error

The Court clarified that standardized language does not automatically make a decision unreasonable. The problem was that the officer failed to engage with key evidence specific to the application.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the June 7, 2024 refusal, and returned the open work permit application to a different IRCC officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 944 (CanLII)