Vujovic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 930 : LMIA-Exempt Work Permit Refusal Set Aside Due to Narrow Eligibility Analysis

The Federal Court reviewed the refusal of Branko Vujovic’s application to restore his temporary resident status and obtain a new work permit. The officer refused the requested LMIA-exempt work permit because the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of reciprocal employment. The Court granted judicial review because the officer failed entirely to consider the applicant’s alternative request for a work permit based on significant social, cultural, or economic benefit.

Key Principle

Where an applicant clearly advances an alternative legal basis for a work permit, the officer must meaningfully consider and address that request. A decision that deals with only one proposed exemption while remaining silent on another properly raised basis is not responsive to the application and may be unreasonable.

Background

The applicant came to Canada to play professional soccer and previously held an LMIA-exempt work permit based on reciprocal employment. After his status expired, he applied within the restoration period to continue working for the same soccer club. He sought a new work permit primarily on reciprocity grounds and, alternatively, on the basis that his work would create significant social, cultural, or economic benefits.

Court Findings

• Reciprocity Refusal Was Not the Determinative Issue

The officer refused the principal work permit request because the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence satisfying the reciprocity requirement. The Court did not decide whether that conclusion itself was reasonable because the complete failure to address the alternative statutory basis was independently sufficient to dispose of the judicial review.

• Alternative Significant-Benefit Request Was Completely Ignored

The applicant expressly asked that his work permit also be considered under the significant-benefit provision. Neither the refusal decision nor the GCMS notes mentioned this alternative basis, demonstrating that the officer failed to engage with a material submission squarely placed before the decision-maker.

• Applicant Argued His Role Benefited Canadian Soccer

The applicant submitted that his continued presence was important to the Canadian Soccer League and that foreign players and coaches were necessary to its operation. This evidence was advanced specifically to support the alternative significant-benefit request and therefore required actual consideration rather than complete silence in the reasons.

• Lack of Status Did Not Bar Consideration of the Alternative Ground

The Minister argued that the applicant could not rely on the significant-benefit provision because he no longer held temporary status. The Court rejected this position because no statutory or jurisprudential authority supported such a restriction, and nothing in the applicable framework made his lack of status a bar to consideration.

• Decision Was Not Responsive to the Application

The Court relied on earlier jurisprudence recognizing that an officer acts unreasonably by failing to consider an alternative statutory ground expressly raised by an applicant. Because the officer ignored the significant-benefit request altogether, the decision failed to respond to a central submission and therefore lacked the justification required on reasonableness review.

Outcome

The Federal Court granted judicial review, set aside the refusal, and remitted the matter to another officer for redetermination. No question was certified.

Case Citation:

Vujovic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 930 (CanLII)