Towsif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137 : LMIA-Supported Cook Work Permit Refusal Upheld After Applicant Failed to Prove Experience for All NOC Duties

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a work permit refusal involving an LMIA-supported position as an Ethnic Food Cook under NOC 63200. Although the Applicant had relevant cooking experience, the Court found that the officer reasonably concluded that the evidence did not establish the Applicant could perform all of the duties associated with the position, particularly kitchen management, inventory management, and hiring and training staff. Pasted text

Key Principle

A positive LMIA does not bind an immigration officer when assessing whether a foreign national can perform the proposed work. Under IRPR 200(3)(a), the officer must independently determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the applicant is unable to perform the work sought. Where the NOC identifies multiple duties and the evidence does not establish the applicant’s ability to perform all of them, a refusal may be reasonable. Pasted text

Background

The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for a work permit to work as an Ethnic Food Cook after ESDC approved an LMIA under NOC 63200. The NOC included duties such as preparing meals, planning menus, maintaining inventory, supervising and training kitchen staff, hiring employees, and managing kitchen operations. Pasted text

The Applicant’s CV identified approximately two years of line-cook experience at the Sheraton Hotel and experience as a chef at the Asia Hotel and Resort. He identified cooking techniques, recipe development, sanitation, knife skills and physical endurance among his relevant skills. A reference letter from the Asia Hotel described him as skilled in cooking and kitchen management, although it did not specifically address the NOC duties concerning inventory, hiring or staff training. Pasted text

Court Findings

• LMIA was not determinative: The parties agreed that the LMIA’s approval was not binding on the officer. The officer was entitled to independently assess whether the Applicant could perform the proposed work. Pasted text

• Insufficient evidence of all required duties: The Court found that the record, even including the disputed Asia Hotel letter, did not establish experience maintaining inventory or hiring and training staff. The CV was also silent regarding kitchen management. The Court therefore accepted that the officer reasonably found the evidence insufficient to demonstrate the ability to perform all required duties. Pasted text

• Applicant bears the evidentiary burden: The Applicant was required to put forward his best case and ensure that the information provided was complete, convincing and unambiguous. The Court emphasized that the officer was entitled to assess the evidence presented rather than infer missing qualifications or experience. Pasted text

• Inaccurate statement was not determinative: The Court acknowledged that the officer incorrectly stated there was “no work experience in the field.” However, this did not make the decision unreasonable because the officer gave detailed reasons explaining why the existing evidence did not establish the ability to perform all the required duties. Pasted text

• No reweighing on judicial review: The Applicant’s arguments essentially invited the Court to reassess the sufficiency of the evidence. The Court declined to do so, finding that the officer’s reasoning contained a clear and logical chain of analysis. Pasted text

Outcome

The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the work permit refusal. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Towsif v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1137 (CanLII)