Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 815 : Federal Court Rejects Officer’s Failure to Properly Assess Construction Experience

The Federal Court granted judicial review of a refusal of a Temporary Foreign Worker Program work permit supported by a positive LMIA. The officer was not satisfied that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay, relying partly on family ties and principally on an alleged lack of evidence establishing that he could perform the proposed drywall installation work. The Court found the officer’s assessment unreasonable because it failed to engage with extensive documentary evidence supporting the Applicant’s approximately three years of construction experience.

Key Principle

Where an officer concludes that a work permit applicant cannot adequately perform the proposed work under IRPR 200(3)(a), the reasons must explain why the evidence submitted to establish the applicant’s qualifications and experience is insufficient. An officer cannot simply characterize substantial corroborating evidence as “limited” without explaining the weight or deficiencies of that evidence.

Background

The Applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a work permit to work as a drywall installer and finisher for a construction company in Montreal. His application was supported by a positive LMIA. The officer refused the application based on concerns that the Applicant lacked significant family ties outside Canada and could not adequately perform the proposed work.

The officer stated that the Applicant had “insufficient experience” because limited documentary evidence had been provided. The Applicant, however, had submitted an employer experience letter, a sworn affidavit describing his work history, photographs showing him performing the work, an affidavit from a co-worker, pay slips and income tax returns corroborating his employment and salary.

Court Findings

• Extensive employment evidence was ignored: The Court found that the evidence supporting the Applicant’s approximately three years of construction experience was not “limited.” The officer failed to explain why the employer letter, affidavits, photographs, pay slips and tax returns were insufficient to establish the claimed experience. The officer instead focused on the absence of bank statements showing regular salary deposits.

• Failure to explain evidentiary weight: The officer did not identify any specific deficiency in the documents provided or explain what additional evidence was necessary. The Court found this lack of transparency made it impossible to understand the basis for the conclusion that the Applicant could not adequately perform the work.

• Hotel Management diploma: The officer questioned why the Applicant pursued construction work when he held a diploma in Hotel Management. The Court found this was not apparently relevant to whether he had the necessary construction experience. If the officer intended to use the diploma to draw a negative credibility inference about the Applicant’s evidence, the Applicant should first have been given notice of that credibility concern and an opportunity to respond, consistent with Obasi v. Canada, 2024 FC 746.

• Family ties: The officer also relied on a lack of significant family ties outside Canada but failed to explain whether or how the Applicant’s parents and siblings in India, with whom he had family relationships, were considered. However, the Court found the inadequate assessment of the work-experience evidence sufficient to dispose of the application.

Outcome

The Court found the refusal unreasonable because the officer failed to transparently explain why the substantial documentary evidence did not establish the Applicant’s ability to perform the proposed work. The decision was set aside and the matter was sent back for redetermination. No question of general importance was certified.

Case Citation:

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 815 (CanLII)