JUDGMENT AND REASONS

[1] The Applicant is a citizen of India, who seeks judicial review of the December 11, 2023 denial of his work permit application to work as a berry picker in British Columbia. The Officer rejected Mr. Singh’s application on a number of grounds and concluded that the Applicant may not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay, pursuant to paragraph 200(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227.

I. Issues and standard of review

[2] On this judicial review, the Applicant argues that the decision was not reasonable and that he did not have a fair process.

[3] The merits of the decision are reviewed on the reasonableness standard (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC at paras 16-17). Procedural fairness is considered on a correctness-like standard (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 34).

II. Analysis

A. Reasonableness of the Officer’s decision

[4] The Applicant argues that several of the Officer’s findings are unreasonable.

[5] First, he argues that it was unreasonable for the Officer to conclude that he did not have sufficient funds available, simply because the bank statements he provided were 5 months old. The Applicant claims that he was previously approved for a work permit for the same position, so he simply resubmitted the same documents in support of this work permit application.

[6] In the Global Case Management System (GCMS) notes, the Officer found as follows:

Applicant is applying for a LMIA WP [Labour Market Impact Assessment Work Permit] as a Berry Picker earning minimum wage in Surrey BC per the job offer letter. Applicant provided a bank statement dated 2023/04/23 (approx 5 months old) with a balance of 1 million INR. Insufficient bank transction [sic] history was provided, as was listed on the WP documents checklist. Due the amount of time elapsed between when the bank statement was generated and when this application was submitted, and as there is insufficient evidence of a transaction history, it is unclear whether the funds are still available and the provenance of the funds is unclear. As such, I have given the funds minimal weight towards evidence of available and unencumbered funds. While I acknowlege [sic] the applicant would be making minimum wage once in Canada, the compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the applicant's job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant.

[7] Even if the Applicant had been previously approved, this was a new application, and it was the Applicant’s responsibility to provide the necessary information in support of his application. The Applicant cannot point to any statutory or regulatory provision, or to wording in the work permit application itself, that permits reliance on previously submitted financial information in support of another work permit application.

[8] The Officer, in considering the application, noted the stale dated bank information and the lack of any transaction history showing the source of the funds in the Applicant’s bank account. These were legitimate concerns, which led the Officer to conclude, reasonably, that the Applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of available and unencumbered funds. The Applicant’s arguments on this issue are unpersuasive and the Officer’s finding is reasonable.

[9] Second, the Applicant argues that it was unreasonable for the Officer to conclude that minimum wage would be insufficient to support his stay in Canada. He points to his offer of employment letter that confirms he would be provided with accommodations at $30 per week.

[10] I understand the Applicant’s argument; however, the Officer’s statement must be considered in the full context of the Officer’s reasoning, where immediately after expressing concerns with the Applicant’s financial sustainability in Canada, the Officer states:

While I acknowlege [sic] the applicant would be making minimum wage once in Canada, the compensation (monetary or other) indicated in the applicant's job offer and their assets and financial situation are insufficient to support the stated purpose of travel for the applicant.

[11] In considering the Applicant’s full financial picture, the Officer concluded that the Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence that he could financially support himself. In reaching this conclusion, the Officer considered both the monetary and non-monetary compensation from employment, along with the Applicant’s financial situation. This is a reasonable finding for the Officer to make.

[12] Third, the Applicant challenges the Officer’s finding that the evidence did not show that he was engaged in farming in India. He argues that the Officer was unreasonable in failing to give the evidence weight.

[13] The GCMS notes on this issue state as follows:

Applicant states to be working as farmer since 2016. I note the J forms provided are all in the name of their father. Have given less weight towards the affidavits written by themself and family members; likewise gave less weight to the ITR as it does not clearly demonstrate employent [sic] history in farming. I have given less weight to the photos provided of the applicant towards evidence of their experience as a farmer as the applicant appears to be posing on tractors that appear stationary as there is no exhaust/wheels not moving/dirt not getting kicked; the applicant is simply standing in a field with their hand in a bag. The applicant's current employment situation does not show that they are financially established in their country of residence.

[14] The Officer noted several concerns with the evidence the Applicant submitted to substantiate his work in agriculture in India. The Officer noted that the “J Forms” (a receipt of a farmer’s sale of produce) were in the Applicant’s father’s name; the Applicant’s income tax returns did not demonstrate that he worked in agriculture; and the photos of the Applicant at a farm did not show him in the act of farming. These concerns relate directly to the sufficiency of evidence to establish the Applicant’s claim that he worked in agriculture. The Officer’s assessment of the relevant evidence was reasonable.

[15] In sum, the Officer reasonably found the financial information was insufficient. The Applicant is inviting the Court to reconsider or reweigh the evidence. That, however, is inconsistent with the Court’s reviewing role on judicial review. Indeed, this Court has emphasized that “an immigration officer’s assessment for a work permit should be given a high degree of deference due to the fact-specific nature of these decisions and because the officers are presumed to be experts in the applicable criteria” (Sebastian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1468 at para 11). I see no error in the Officer’s analysis that renders their conclusion on this point unreasonable.

[16] Finally, the Applicant submits that it was improper for the Officer to give the affidavits of the Applicant and his father reduced weight. In support, he relies on Murillo Taborda v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 957 at paras 27-29, citing Cruz Ugalde v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2011 FC 458 at para 26 [Cruz Ugalde]. I would note that Cruz Ugalde also states that “giving evidence little weight due to its ‘self-serving’ nature is an option open to the decision-maker” (Ugalde at para 25).

[17] This Court has noted that, on judicial review, courts “should not view an officer’s decision to diminish the weight placed on evidence described as ‘self-serving’ when uncorroborated as an incorrect attribution of weight to the evidence or a reviewable ground to overturn the decision” (Fadiga v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1157 at para 25). Given the weaknesses in the corroborating evidence identified by the Officer, it was reasonable for the Officer to afford these affidavits reduced weight. While the Officer could have more clearly justified why these affidavits were afforded reduced weight, I note that a visa officer’s requirements for reasons is minimal (Shirkavand v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1022 at para 15).

[18] Overall, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Officer’s decision lacked transparency, intelligibility, and justification, nor that the decision was outside a possible, defensible range of outcomes based on the evidence and applicable law (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 86). As such, the decision was reasonable.

B. Procedural fairness

[19] On procedural fairness, the Applicant argues that he should have been given the opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns.

[20] The procedural fairness requirements in work permit cases are minimal (Masych v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1253 at para 30 [Masych]). The onus is on the Applicant to satisfy the requirements on all parts of his application, and the Officer was under no obligation to ask for additional material where the Applicant’s material was insufficient (Masych at para 31).

[21] The Applicant cites Campbell Hara v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 263 at para 23 [Campbell Hara] for the proposition that procedural fairness may require an applicant to be provided the opportunity to address an officer’s concerns. The circumstances described in Campbell Hara are those where an officer’s conclusion is reached in a manner which an applicant could not have anticipated. Either because the officer relied on extrinsic evidence or because the officer formed an adverse subjective opinion from the applicant’s evidence that the applicant could not have foreseen. Those circumstances are not at play in this case. The Officer did not rely on extrinsic evidence, and the Officer’s concerns with the Applicant’s materials were foreseeable and based on objective shortcomings in the Applicant’s evidence.

[22] Finally, Mr. Singh claims that he had legitimate expectations that his documentation would be accepted because a previous officer accepted it. The previous decision was a different application made at a different time by a different officer. There was no representation from either officer or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada that the Applicant would be successful if he reapplied for a work permit using the same evidence.

[23] There were no procedural fairness failures in the consideration of the Applicant’s work permit application.

III. Conclusion

[24] This judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification.

JUDGMENT IN IMM-2738-24

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that :

1. This judicial review is dismissed.

2. There is no question for certification.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

APPEARANCES :

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: