Verma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 798 : LMIA-Exempt Work Permit Refusal Upheld Where Applicant Failed to Establish Mandatory NOC Employment Requirements

The Federal Court dismissed the Applicant’s judicial review of a refusal of an LMIA-exempt work permit and restoration of status. The Applicant sought authorization to work as a food service supervisor under NOC 62020. The Officer found that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence establishing that he met the mandatory employment requirements for the occupation.

Key Principle

Where a NOC identifies an employment requirement as “required,” rather than “usually required,” an officer may reasonably treat that requirement as a mandatory condition for issuance of the work permit. An applicant must provide evidence demonstrating compliance with that requirement. Experience that falls materially short of the NOC requirement does not establish eligibility merely because the prospective employer wishes to re-employ the applicant.

Background

The Applicant applied for an LMIA-exempt work permit to work as a food service supervisor under NOC 62020. The NOC requires either completion of a community college program in food service administration, hotel and restaurant management, or a related discipline, or several years of experience in food preparation or service. Completion of secondary school is described as “usually required.”

The Applicant did not provide evidence of completing a qualifying educational program or several years of relevant work experience. Although his application referred to a post-graduate diploma from Conestoga College, it did not identify the field of study. He provided evidence that he had worked for approximately one year as an assistant manager with his prospective employer.

Because he was out of status when he applied, he also sought restoration of status. Both applications were refused.

Court Findings

• Mandatory NOC requirement: The Court distinguished between requirements described as “required” and those described as “usually required.” Relying on Guitang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 835, the Court held that the requirement for the NOC at issue was unqualified and could reasonably be treated by the Officer as a condition precedent to issuing the work permit.

• One year of experience was insufficient: The Officer expressly considered the Applicant’s employment history with the prospective employer but reasonably concluded that one year of experience did not satisfy the NOC requirement of “several years” of relevant experience.

• Evidence was not ignored: The Court rejected the argument that the Officer overlooked the Applicant’s previous employment. The GCMS notes specifically referred to the employment history. The problem was not that the evidence was ignored, but that the evidence did not establish the mandatory NOC requirement.

• Reasonable chain of analysis: The Officer identified the applicable NOC requirement, compared it against the evidence submitted, and concluded that the Applicant had not established that he could perform the proposed work. The Court found this reasoning to be intelligible, transparent, and justified under the Vavilov reasonableness framework.

Outcome

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review. The refusal of the LMIA-exempt work permit and restoration application therefore remained in place. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Verma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 798 (CanLII)