The Federal Court reviewed IRCC’s
refusal of Muhammad Tehseen’s LMIA-based work permit application for employment
as a meat cutter in Canada. The officer found that the applicant had
insufficient experience and had not demonstrated that he would leave Canada at
the end of his authorized stay. The Court granted judicial review because the
officer focused on the absence of an exact hiring date in one employment letter
while failing to address several other documents confirming that the applicant
had worked as a meat cutter since 2019.
Key Principle
Although visa officers are not
required to mention every document in an application, they must address
material evidence that directly contradicts an important refusal finding. Where
multiple independent sources consistently confirm an applicant’s work experience,
an officer cannot reasonably find insufficient experience by focusing on a
minor deficiency in one document without explaining why the remaining evidence
was rejected or given little weight. Brief reasons may be sufficient, but they
must remain responsive to the central evidence before the decision-maker.
Background
The applicant, a citizen of
Pakistan, received a Canadian job offer as a meat cutter at a grocery and halal
meat store. His work permit application was supported by a positive Labour
Market Impact Assessment and an employment offer dated June 8, 2023.
He submitted a notarized letter
from Tehseen Meat Shop in Pakistan, where he claimed to have worked as a meat
cutter and co-owner since 2019. He also provided tax documents, bank records, a
net-worth statement, customer statements, a résumé, and a statutory
declaration.
The officer refused the
application because the applicant’s employment situation did not demonstrate
financial establishment and because he allegedly had insufficient experience to
perform the proposed work. The GCMS notes stated that the employment letter was
undated and did not identify the exact date he had been hired.
Court Findings
• Multiple Documents Confirmed
the Applicant’s Experience
The applicant’s application form,
résumé, statutory declaration, employment letter, and customer statements all
indicated that he had worked as a meat cutter since 2019.
• Officer Focused on a Minor
Deficiency
The officer relied almost
entirely on the absence of an exact hiring date in the employment letter. The
Court noted that the letter was notarized on June 23, 2023, even though its
typewritten content was undated.
• Contrary Evidence Required
an Explanation
The officer was presumed to have
reviewed the record, but the volume and consistency of the evidence
contradicting the insufficient-experience finding required at least a brief
explanation of why it was not accepted.
• Error Undermined the Overall
Refusal
The finding of insufficient
experience was one of only two grounds supporting the conclusion that the
applicant would not leave Canada. The error was therefore sufficiently
significant to render the entire decision unreasonable.
Outcome
The Federal Court granted
judicial review, set aside the December 20, 2023 work permit refusal, and
returned the application to a different officer for redetermination. The Court
did not need to address the procedural fairness arguments. No question was certified.
Case Citation:
Tehseen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 55 (CanLII)
Prepared by:
Dr. Muhammad
Abrar (Barrister and
Solicitor)
Author | Writer | Mentor | Legal Researcher | Canadian Immigration Case Law and
Statistics Analyst
