Shahpouri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 957

REASONS AND JUDGMENT

[1] The Applicant, Elnaz Shahpouri, applied for a work permit through the International Mobility Program for intra-company transfers. An officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refused her application. Ms. Shahpouri challenges this decision on judicial review.

[2] Work permits for intra-company transfers through the International Mobility Program are governed by the requirements set out in paragraph 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 –the proposed work “would create or maintain significant social, cultural or economic benefits or opportunities for Canadian citizens or permanent residents”. Publicly available program instructions provide guidance to officers making these determinations.

[3] The Officer principally refused Ms. Shahpouri’s application on two grounds: i) lack of significant family ties outside of Canada; and ii) insufficient evidence of significant benefit to Canada because of the lack of details on business viability.

[4] The day before the hearing of the judicial review, Applicant’s counsel sought to introduce a late supplementary affidavit of himself. The affidavit included documents he said had been filed with Ms. Shahpouri’s work permit application. There was no explanation for the delay in providing this affidavit or how these documents related to the documents already included in the 491 page certified tribunal record (“CTR”). I refused to accept the affidavit, explaining that counsel who signed the memorandum of argument and was set to appear at the hearing could not present their own evidence. Further, no explanation was provided for the delay in filing the affidavit or how its contents were related to the documents in the CTR.

[5] At the outset of the judicial review hearing, Applicant’s counsel informed me that he did not have access to the 491 page CTR because he had not been able to open the document. It is unfortunate and concerning that Applicant’s counsel only raised this issue on the day of the hearing, despite having been provided with the CTR over three months ago and the Respondent’s Further Memorandum of Argument, approximately three weeks ago, which cited to the lengthy CTR numerous times. Applicant’s counsel stated he was content to proceed with the hearing, as he was familiar with the file, having been the counsel who submitted the work permit application. Despite the lack of any explanation for why he had not realized sooner that he could not open the CTR, the Court ensured that the materials were sent to him during the hearing and he had an opportunity to rely on them during Respondent’s submissions and in his reply submissions.

[6] I considered the Applicant’s limited arguments on the unreasonableness and unfairness of the Officer’s decision concerning significant benefit. Applicant’s counsel focused his oral submissions on pointing out, in his view, discrepancies in the Respondent’s memorandum of argument. For the most part, Applicant’s counsel’s submissions did not focus on the Officer’s reasons and the evidence filed in support of the application. When the Court asked him to do so, his general position was that the Officer did not adequately justify their decision because they failed to explain their reasoning given the volume of evidence that was before them.

[7] I do not agree. The Officer explained their concerns with the evidence submitted. Specifically, the Officer explained that there were “limited documents submitted to explain how a new business would remain competitive and will provided significant benefit to Canada”, that they were not satisfied that the company had provided “realistic plans to create a viable business that will be large enough to provide significant benefit to Canada” and there was insufficient evidence of “the company’s financial ability to commence a business in Canada and compensate employees and that they demonstrate it will be large enough to support executive or management function.” The Applicant has not pointed concretely to evidence that the Officer overlooked in making these findings. The Applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence itself which is not the Court’s role on judicial review (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 125).

[8] Applicant’s counsel also argued that the significant benefit was established because it was an intra-company program application. Counsel argued that, because the Applicant would be bringing her expertise to Canada, a significant benefit would therefore be realized. The Officer’s concerns were about the viability of the proposed business activity in Canada. The Applicant’s circular argument does not address the Officer’s fundamental concern.

[9] I agree with the Applicant that the Officer’s assessment of her family ties is unreasonable. The Officer’s finding of a lack of significant family ties in Ms. Shahpouri’s home country is not supported by the evidence in the record, which confirms that she would be leaving behind her husband and minor son in Iran. There is no explanation provided for the Officer’s family ties determination in light of this evidence.

[10] Nonetheless, the finding on family ties in this case is not a sufficient basis on which to allow the judicial review. The Officer’s determination on the viability of the business and whether the Applicant’s work would create a significant benefit to Canada was the primary basis for the refusal. Indeed, demonstrating that a significant benefit to Canada would be created is a requirement for obtaining this type of Labour Market Impact Assessment-exempt work permit. As I see no sufficiently serious shortcoming of the Officer’s analysis on the significant benefit issue, there is no basis for the Court’s intervention.

[11] In written submissions, the Applicant also argued the Officer ought to have notified her of their concerns and given her an opportunity to respond. There is no merit to this argument. There was no extrinsic evidence considered or negative credibility finding made. In these circumstances, an applicant does not have to be notified by an officer to address concerns and gaps in the evidence (Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at para 21).

JUDGMENT in IMM-7552-25

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed; and

2. Neither party raised a question for certification and I agree none arises.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCE:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: