The
Federal Court reviewed the refusal of a work permit application supported by a
positive Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA). The visa officer concluded
that the job offer was not genuine after conducting an open-source internet
search that showed the employer’s business address was a private residence. The
Court granted judicial review, finding that the officer ignored important
evidence about the employer’s business operations and failed to justify why the
positive LMIA should be disregarded.
Key
Principle
The
Federal Court held that a positive LMIA cannot be discounted based solely on an
officer’s open-source internet search suggesting that an employer operates from
a residential address. Where the evidentiary record, including the LMIA and
business information, supports the genuineness of the job offer, the officer
must meaningfully engage with that evidence and provide transparent reasons
before concluding that the offer is not genuine.
Background
Gurpreet
Singh, an Indian citizen, applied for an employer-specific work permit to work
as a construction helper in Alberta. His application was supported by a
positive LMIA issued by Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). The
officer refused the application after relying on an open-source search that
identified the employer’s listed address as a private residence, concluding
that the employment offer was not genuine. A request for reconsideration was
subsequently denied.
Court
Findings
- Officer Failed to Properly Consider the Positive LMIA
Although IRCC officers are not bound by a positive
LMIA, the Court held that it remains significant evidence supporting the
genuineness of a job offer. The officer failed to explain why an internet
search outweighed ESDC’s assessment and did not meaningfully engage with the
LMIA or the evidence supporting the employer’s operations.
- Residential Address Did Not Render the Job Offer Non-Genuine
The Court found that the officer’s reasoning rested
solely on the assumption that a legitimate construction company could not
operate from a private residence. This ignored the evidence that the employer
was a small construction business performing work at multiple job sites while
operating from a home office, a business model reflected in the LMIA itself.
- Failure to Grapple with Contradictory Evidence
The officer overlooked evidence demonstrating that
the employer provided mobile construction and finished carpentry services at
various locations. By failing to reconcile this evidence with the conclusion
that the job offer was not genuine, the decision lacked the justification,
transparency, and intelligibility required by Vavilov.
Outcome
The
Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, set aside the
refusal, and remitted the matter to a different officer for redetermination.
The Court found it unnecessary to address the procedural fairness arguments
because the decision was unreasonable on its merits.
Case Citation: Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 732 (CanLII)
