Taheri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 520 : Ignoring Evidence of English Language Ability Undermined the Work Permit Refusal

The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s refusal of Amir Taheri’s LMIA-based work permit application for employment as a flooring installer in Ontario. The officer was not satisfied that the applicant could adequately perform the proposed work because he had not submitted a formal language assessment. The Court granted judicial review, finding that neither the LMIA nor the job offer required a language test or minimum score and that the officer failed to consider the applicant’s evidence of English-language education.

Key Principle

Visa officers may independently assess whether an applicant has the language ability required to perform proposed employment. However, they cannot impose a mandatory language test or minimum proficiency standard that does not appear in the LMIA, NOC, or job offer. The officer must identify the level of language ability required for the position, consider the evidence submitted, and explain why the applicant’s ability is insufficient. The absence of a formal language assessment cannot alone justify refusal where no such assessment was required.

Background

The applicant, a citizen of Iran, applied in August 2023 for a work permit supported by a positive LMIA to work as a flooring installer.

The LMIA identified English or French as the verbal language requirement but contained no written-language requirement and did not prescribe a minimum test score. The job offer similarly did not require formal language testing.

The applicant submitted evidence that he had completed English courses during high school and university. Nevertheless, the officer refused the application under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, concluding that he could not adequately perform the work because the application did not include a formal language assessment.

The Minister argued that language test results were identified in the Ankara visa office checklist and that the applicant’s older educational evidence did not demonstrate current proficiency.

Court Findings

• Officer Imposed an Additional Requirement

The Court found that the officer required a formal language assessment even though the LMIA and job offer did not impose that requirement. Officers cannot add mandatory qualifications beyond those specified for the position.

• Applicant’s Language Evidence Was Ignored

The officer did not engage with the applicant’s evidence that he had studied English in high school and university. The reasons did not explain why this evidence was inadequate or identify the proficiency level needed for flooring-installation work.

• Language Ability Still Required Individual Assessment

The Court confirmed that officers may assess an applicant’s ability to perform the proposed work. However, the assessment must consider the actual job conditions, the language requirements stated in the LMIA, and the evidence provided.

• Visa Office Checklist Did Not Support Refusal

The checklist required language test results only where language ability was expressly a requirement of the job offer. Since the job offer imposed no such testing requirement, the checklist did not justify the officer’s conclusion.

Outcome

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

Case Citation:

Taheri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 520 (CanLII)