Docket: IMM-2716-25
Citation: 2026 FC 341
Toronto, Ontario, March 13, 2026
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott
|
BETWEEN: |
|
HAILE PELIGRINO
|
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated January 22, 2025 [the Decision], of an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] officer [the Officer] to refuse to process a Labour Market Impact Assessment [LMIA]-based work permit application [the Application]. The Officer found that the Application met the refusal criteria for applications as set out in the Ministerial Instructions regarding the processing of certain work permit applications, found in the Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 26: Government Notices (Refusal to process work permit applications for caregivers where the LMIA application was received under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program) [the Instructions].
[2] As explained in greater detail below, this application for judicial review is allowed, because the Decision does not demonstrate that the Officer engaged substantively with the fact that the Application sought restoration of the Applicant’s status pursuant to subsection 182(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations] and how that fact may have affected the application of the Instructions.
II. Background
[3] The Applicant, a citizen of the Philippines, worked as an in-home caregiver for a family in Quebec under an LMIA-based work permit valid from October 13, 2022, to October 12, 2024.
[4] In November 2024, after the expiration of her work permit on October 12, 2024, the Applicant applied for a new work permit with a new employer located in Ontario under a new LMIA. On her IMM 5710 form submitted in support of this work permit application, the Applicant checked the boxes for both “Restore my status as a worker”
and “Apply for a work permit for the first time or with a new employer”
. In another section of the form, the Applicant indicated that she was currently out of status in Canada and that her status required restoration. IRCC received her application on November 28, 2024.
[5] By letter dated January 22, 2025, the Officer conveyed the Decision, refusing to process the application because it met the refusal-to-process criteria of the Instructions. IRCC therefore withdrew the application. In the Global Case Management [GCMS] notes dated the same day, the Officer similarly stated the following conclusion:
Client meets criteria under the Refusal to Process Ministerial Instructions for work permit apps received under Temporary Foreign Worker Program for caregiver occupations. Application withdrawn and fees refunded as per guidance.
[6] The Applicant seeks judicial review of this Decision.
III. Issue and Standard of Review
[7] The sole issue for the Court’s determination is whether the Decision is reasonable.
[8] The parties agree that the merits of the Decision are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, as informed by Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]).
IV. Legislative Framework
[9] The authority for issuance of the Instructions is derived from section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], pursuant to which the Instructions have the force of law. The Instructions direct designated officers who are charged with handling and/or reviewing applications for work permits not to process work permit applications made by a foreign national under subparagraph 200(1)(c)(iii) of the Regulations (related to the issuance of work permits) if the application is described under Part 1 or 2 of the Instructions. The parties agree that, for purposes of their arguments in this application, it is Part 2 (and, in particular, paragraph (b) of Part 2) that is relevant. Part 2 provides as follows:
Part 2. For applications submitted before or after entry to Canada
a. the applicant is making a work permit application before entry to Canada (per section 197) or after entry to Canada (per section 199 of the Immigration and Refugee Protections Regulations)
b. the applicant is making a new work permit application (i.e., does not currently hold a valid work or study permit or was not, immediately preceding the application, authorized to work without a work permit under section 186 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations)
c. the applicant intends to engage in work as described under National Occupational Classification (NOC) code 44100 (excluding foster parents) or 44101; AND
d. the applicant is destined to a job location outside Quebec.
[Emphasis added]
[10] The provision regarding applications for status restoration by a visitor, worker or student, made within 90 days after losing temporary resident status, is set out in subsection 182(1) of the Regulations as follows:
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227
Restoration
182 (1) On application made by a visitor, worker or student within 90 days after losing temporary resident status as a result of failing to comply with a condition imposed under paragraph 185(a), any of subparagraphs 185(b)(i) to (iii) or paragraph 185(c), an officer shall restore that status if, following an examination, it is established that the visitor, worker or student meets the initial requirements for their stay, has not failed to comply with any other conditions imposed and is not the subject of a declaration made under subsection 22.1(1) of the Act.
|
Règlement sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés , DORS/2002-227
Rétablissement
182 (1) Sur demande faite par le visiteur, le travailleur ou l’étudiant dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la perte de son statut de résident temporaire parce qu’il ne s’est pas conformé à l’une des conditions prévues à l’alinéa 185a), aux sous-alinéas 185b)(i) à (iii) ou à l’alinéa 185c), l’agent rétablit ce statut si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, il est établi que l’intéressé satisfait aux exigences initiales de sa période de séjour, qu’il s’est conformé à toute autre condition imposée à cette occasion et qu’il ne fait pas l’objet d’une déclaration visée au paragraphe 22.1(1) de la Loi.
|
V. Analysis
A. Is the Decision reasonable?
[11] The Applicant submits that the Officer’s brief analysis of her eligibility to have the Application processed lacks the transparency and intelligibility required of reasonable administrative decision-making. In particular, the Applicant argues that the Officer failed to conduct a meaningful analysis of her request for restoration of status.
[12] The Applicant takes the position that she meets all eligibility criteria under subsection 182(1) of the Regulations for restoration of her status as a worker and, as such, it was an error for the Officer to apply the Instructions and refuse to process her Application. The Applicant argues that, with the benefit of status restoration, she would not be subject to paragraph (b) of Part 2 of the Instructions, which relates only to an applicant who does not hold a valid work permit.
[13] The Respondent disputes the Applicant’s interpretation of the relationship between the Instructions and subsection 182(1) of the Regulations. The Respondent emphasizes that the Applicant’s work permit had expired over a month before she submitted the Application and argues that the effect of paragraph (b) of Part 2 of the Instructions is that an application for a work permit must be refused if the applicant does not currently hold a valid work permit [Respondent’s emphasis]. The Respondent submits that the fact the Applicant sought restoration of her status as a component of the Application does not assist her in avoiding the application of the Instructions.
[14] Neither party has referred the Court to any authority to support their respective interpretations of the interaction between the Instructions and subsection 182(1) of the Regulations. More significantly, the record before the Court does not demonstrate that the Officer conducted any analysis of that interaction. Indeed, it is not apparent from the record whether the Officer afforded any substantive consideration to the fact that the Applicant had not only applied for a work permit but had also sought restoration of status.
[15] To be clear, the Court is not expressing a view on the answer to the question as to which party’s interpretation of the interplay between the Instructions and subsection 182(1) of the Regulations is correct or indeed reasonable. Rather, my decision to allow this application for judicial review turns on the absence of any indication in the record that the Officer considered that question. As the Application sought status restoration under subsection 182(1), that question was necessarily engaged by the Officer’s decision to refuse the Application under the Instructions, and the absence of any apparent consideration or analysis of the relationship between the Instructions and subsection 182(1) of the Regulations renders the Decision unintelligible and therefore unreasonable in accordance with the principles explained in Vavilov (at para 15).
VI. Conclusion
[16] As I have found that the Decision is unreasonable, my Judgment will allow this application for judicial review, set aside the Decision, and return the matter to another IRCC Officer for redetermination.
[17] Neither party proposed any question for certification for appeal, and none is stated.
Email this Content