Date: 20241212

Docket: IMM-13901-23

Citation: 2024 FC 2014

Ottawa, Ontario, December 12, 2024

PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland

JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] Adedunni Sakirat Adepoju, the Principal Applicant, seeks judicial review of a visa officer [Officer] with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refusing her work permit application and, as a result, also refusing a work permit application for her spouse, Muftau Olasunkanmi Adedoyin, temporary resident visa [TRV] applications for four of their children, as well as a study permit application for their fifth, minor child.

Background and Decisions Under Review

[2] The Applicants are citizens of Nigeria. On June 20, 2023, the Principal Applicant applied for a work permit to work in the position of “Children Minister” at Firstpoint Allianz Foundation in Alberta, which had provided her with an offer of employment. In her work permit application, she indicated that she currently works in the position of Children Minister at Faith Hill Helps Network in Abuja, Nigeria. The Applicant applied under s 205(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRP Regulations], which enables a visa officer to issue a work permit under s 200 of the IRP Regulations to a foreign national who intends to perform work that is of a religious or charitable nature.

[3] By letter dated September 13, 2023, the Officer refused the Principal Applicant’s work permit application. The global case management system [GCMS] notes, which form a part of the Officer’s reasons, state that the Officer was not satisfied the Principal Applicant would be able to carry out the position offered. Her employment letter from her previous employer, Faith Hill Helps Network, states that the Principal Applicant was a Children Minister from 2018 onward. However, the Principal Applicant had provided no pay slips or corresponding bank deposits to support that she held this employment. The spouse’s work permit application and four of the children’s TRV applications were also refused because they depended on the approval of the Principal Applicant’s work permit application. The study permit application for the minor child, Abdullah Opeyemi Bello, was refused on September 25, 2023. The visa officer who decided that application found that although the purpose of the child’s visit was to accompany a parent, there was no evidence of a parental application.

Issues and Standard of Review

[4] The Applicant raises two issues:

1. The decisions were procedurally unfair; and

2. The decisions were unreasonable.

[5] The standard of review for issues of procedural fairness is correctness (see Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 79; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2020 FCA 196 at para 35). Functionally, this requires the Court’s analysis to focus on whether the procedure followed was fair, having regard to all the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).

[6] The standard of review applicable to the merits of the Officer’s decision is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 25 [Vavilov]). On judicial review, the Court asks whether the decision bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on the decision (Vavilov, at para 99).

No Breach of Procedural Fairness

[7] The Applicants submit that their applications were refused without affording them the opportunity to provide any explanation or further information to resolve questions or doubts the Officer may have had about their applications. According to the Applicants, they are owed a higher degree of procedural fairness as the decisions are final and have a negative impact on their social life and ministry. Further, the Officer expressed doubts about the credibility of the Principal Applicant’s documentary evidence and her ability or qualifications for the offered employment.

[8] There is no merit to this submission.

[9] The jurisprudence surrounding the obligations of applicants when making work permit applications, and the duty of procedural fairness owed to them when assessing such applications, is well established. The onus is on an applicant to demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and the IRP Regulations by providing sufficient evidence in support of their application. Put otherwise, applicants must put their best case forward and submit all relevant documentation in support of their application (Sadeghieh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 442 at para 28; Chamma v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 29 at para 35; Yang v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 954 at para 31; Farboodi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1280 at para 20; Pastor v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1263 at para 18). The duty of procedural fairness owed by visa officers to an applicant is on the low end of the spectrum. Visa officers are not obliged to: notify an applicant of inadequacies in their application nor in the materials provided in support of the application; seek clarification or additional documentation; or, provide an applicant with an opportunity to address the officer’s concerns when the material provided in support of an application is unclear, incomplete or insufficient to convince the visa officer that the applicant meets all the requirements that stem from the IRP Regulations (see Mahmoudzadeh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 453 at para 14 [Mahmoudzadeh]).

[10] Further, when a concern arises directly from the requirements of the legislation or related regulations, a visa officer is not under a duty to provide an opportunity for an applicant to address their concerns. However, when the issue is not one that arises in that context, such a duty may arise. That is, if the visa officer was concerned with the credibility, the veracity, or the authenticity of the documentation provided by an applicant, as opposed to the sufficiency of the evidence provided, an obligation to provide the applicant with an opportunity to address those concerns may arise (Hamza v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 264 at paras 22–25; Tollerene v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 538 at para 15; Gur v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1275 at paras 13–17; Mohammadzadeh, at paras 20–29); Rezaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 444 at para 12).

[11] I agree with the Respondent that, contrary to the Applicants’ submissions, the Officer’s reasons do not involve any credibility findings. Rather, the Officer’s concern was with the sufficiency of the evidence submitted by the Principal Applicant in support of her work permit application. Specifically, the sufficiency of the information showing that the Principal Applicant could adequately perform the work sought by providing pay slips or corresponding bank deposits, demonstrating her current employment as a Children Minister, which information was identified as necessary in the Immigration Canada, Work Permit, Lagos Visa Office Instructions <https://ircc.canada.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/IMM5914E.pdf> [Visa Office Instructions]. The Officer was not required to notify the Principal Applicant that her application was deficient or to provide her with an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns in that regard. There was no breach of the duty of procedural fairness.

The Decision Was Reasonable

[12] The Applicants submit that the decisions were not reasonable because the Officer failed to provide reasons that allowed them to understand why their applications were refused. Further, that the Officer’s decision with respect to the minor Applicant’s study permit application contained an egregious misrepresentation of the facts. While the Officer stated that the Principal Applicant had been offered the position of “Pastor”, the offer of employment was in fact for “Children Minister”. According to the Applicants, the term “minister” does not inherently connote a Christian affiliation and its use extends beyond religious boundaries. Therefore, “the Officer’s apparent assumption that the principal applicant’s faith precluded her from fulfilling the duties associated with the position is unfounded and discriminatory.” Further, that the decision making process was tainted by this erroneous characterization as it can be reasonably inferred that the Officer’s perception of the Principal Applicant’s qualifications was distorted by the mistaken belief that she needed to be a Pastor to fulfil her role effectively.

[13] The Applicants also submit that the Officer illogically concluded that the lack of payslips or corresponding deposits was related to the Principal Applicant’s ability to do the work she had been offered. They submit that there is no legal basis for requiring this information. In denying the applications based on this arbitrary requirement, the Officer erred by attempting to establish a new set of criteria or ministerial instructions.

[14] I do not agree with the Applicants.

[15] As the Respondent points out, the Visa Office Instructions, are publicly available on the Government of Canada website. These instructions include a checklist of what must be submitted with an application for a work permit and state that failure to submit all required documentation may result in the refusal of the application or processing delays. The checklist includes the following:

Proof of employment - letter from your current employer and payslips (last 3 months). Employment letter dated within two months of the application indicating occupation, job description, position, salary, allowances, years of employment and authorized leave dates.

[16] This Court has held that an applicant’s failure to provide documents required by a visa office can be a reasonable ground for refusal (see, for example, Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 at paras 28, 31 [Aghvamiamoli]; Najaran v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 541 at paras 4–5; Eslami v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 409 at para 13; Abdisoufi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 164 at paras 9–10; Davoodabadi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 85 at paras 13–14 [Davoodabadi]; Salamat v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 545 at paras 8–9, 11; and, Singh Khosa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1328 at paras 5–6 [Singh Khosa]).

[17] In Singh Khosa, Justice Diner held that temporary entrants to Canada must comply with relevant policies, guidelines and directions (para 5, citing Hassanpour v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1738 at para 29; Davoodabadi, at paras 13–14; and Aghvamiamoli, at para 28). In that case, the New Delhi Checklist for temporary worker visas was applicable. The New Delhi Checklist for Work Permits, under the heading “Additional Supporting Documents to be submitted”, required “proof of personal funds, including income tax returns for the past two years, bank statements or book from the past three months….” However, the applicant only provided a “balance certificate” indicating the balance of his bank account 10 months prior to this application (para 6). Although it was not the determinative issue in that case, Justice Diner found that this evidence did not satisfy the visa office’s checklist requirement.

[18] I agree with the Respondent that the onus was on the Principal Applicant to provide all required documentation and to demonstrate her ability to adequately perform the work sought, as is required under s 200(3) of the IRP Regulations. Because she failed to provide proof of employment as contemplated by the Visa Office Instructions, that is both a letter from her employer and payslips, both of which would have corroborated her current employment at Faith Hill Helps Network in a position related to the position she sought in Canada, the Officer reasonably concluded that the Applicant had not demonstrated her ability to adequately perform the work sought. While the Applicants refer the Court to bank statements of the spouse and of one of the dependant applicants that were provided in the record, these do not assist them. These statements do not show pay deposits to the Applicant from her current employer.

[19] Contrary to the Applicants’ position, the Officer’s reasons, while brief, are sufficient to understand why the decision was made.

[20] The refusals of the Principal Applicant’s accompanying family members flowed from the rejection of the Principal Applicant’s work permit application. They applied, as a family, to accompany the Principal Applicant. As the Officer found in the GCMS notes with respect to the Principal Applicant’s spouse, he applied as an accompanying dependant. Once the Principal Applicant’s work permit application was refused, the spouse no longer had a purpose to travel to Canada. Accordingly, the Officer was not satisfied that the spouse would depart Canada at the end of a period authorized for his stay and refused his application. The same reasoning applied with respect to the TRVs of the four accompanying children, as the work permit application of their parent, the Principal Applicant, had been refused.

[21] Given that I have found that the Officer’s decision with respect to the Principal Applicant’s work permit was reasonable, it follows that the Officer’s decisions refusing the applications of her accompanying family members are also reasonable, as they are entirely dependant on the outcome of the Principal Applicant’s work permit application (see, for example, Shirazi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 822 at para 27).

[22] With respect to study permit decision for the fifth child, their application was filed several months after the other applications, on September 7, 2023. A different officer refused the study permit application on September 25, 2023. Given that the applications of the Principal Applicant and her spouse were refused on September 13, 2023, it was reasonable for that visa officer to find, on September 25, 2023, that there was no parental work permit application in progress. Accordingly, nothing turns on the fact that in that officer’s reasons they state that the Principal Applicant has been offered employment in Canada as a “pastor” rather than “Children Minister.” And, in any event, the Principal Applicant’s work permit decision correctly identifies her proposed work as that of “Children Minister”. I also agree with the Respondent that, because the study permit application was refused subsequent to the other family members’ applications (including the Principle Applicant’s), there is no basis for the Applicants’ argument that this incorrect reference to the word “Pastor” instead of the words “Children Minister” somehow “tainted” the Officer’s findings on the rest of the decisions.

[23] For all of these reasons, I find that the Officer’s decisions were reasonable.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-13901-23

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that

1. The application for judicial review is dismissed;

2. There shall be no order as to costs; and

3. No question of general importance for certification was proposed or arises.

"Cecily Y. Strickland"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: