Docket: IMM-1897-25
Citation: 2026 FC 59
Toronto, Ontario, January 15, 2026
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Diner
|
BETWEEN: |
|
OLASUNKANMI AHMED BOLAJI |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
IMMIGRATION, REFUGEE AND
CITIZENSHIP CANADA |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review [ALJR] of a decision dated January 15, 2025 [the Decision], refusing his application to extend a work permit as a Direct Support Professional. For the reasons detailed here, I find the Officer’s Decision reasonable, and the application is dismissed.
I. Overview
[2] The Applicant is a British citizen who sought to extend his authorization to work in Canada as a Direct Support Professional classified under National Occupational Classification [NOC] 42201 (social and community service workers). The offer of employment specified that the position required a college diploma or university degree in “human services”
, and one year of experience working with persons with developmental disabilities. The duties described in the offer included providing direct support services and maintaining comprehensive financial records in accordance with financial policies and procedures.
[3] The refusal Decision was based on concerns relating to whether the Applicant met the educational and experience requirements of the position, whether the claimed Canadian work experience could be given positive weight in light of the Applicant’s prior work authorization, and whether aspects of the job duties aligned with the claimed NOC. The Applicant challenges the reasonableness and procedural fairness of the Decision.
[4] The presumptive standard of review applicable to the merits of the Decision is reasonableness (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov [Vavilov], 2019 SCC 65 at paras 15‑17). Allegations of procedural fairness are assessed by determining whether the process followed was fair in the circumstances (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, at para 54).
[5] Here, the Officer was not satisfied, based on the evidence presented, that the Applicant’s credentials met the stated educational requirement. As noted above, the offer of employment required a college diploma or university degree in human services. The Applicant holds a Bachelor of Laws. The record that was presented to the Officer did not provide any material or evidence demonstrating how the Applicant’s degree satisfied that requirement, or established equivalency to the occupational requirement.
[6] The Applicant, before this Court, submitted new evidence to support his argument that the Bachelor of Laws should be held equivalent to a university degree in human services such that the Officer’s evaluation of his ability to undertake the support worker job duties, were unreasonable.
[7] There are two problems with the Applicant’s position on this issue. First, much of that evidence and argument presented to the Court was not presented to the Officer. The Court, subject to any procedural fairness concerns – and none of any moment raised – can only review the record before the decision-maker on judicial review (Devadawson v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 80 at para 31, citing Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, 428 FTR 297 at para 19). Second, to do so would require the Court to reweigh the evidence and substitute its own view for that of the Officer, which is not the function of judicial review (Vavilov, at para 125).
[8] In addition, the Officer noted that the Applicant’s prior work permit authorized employment in the occupation of Payroll Administrator. Given the discrepancy with the experience that the Applicant stated that he had under that job in his community service role, the Officer declined to place positive weight on the Applicant’s claimed Canadian experience as a Direct Support Worker.
[9] In sum, I will not consider the new evidence submitted with this judicial review to the Court. Further, and what is determinative on this point, is that the Applicant conceded that he worked under the wrong job occupation for his entire tenure with that employer under the work permit. His argument – that he was unaware of the error and it was incumbent on the Officer, who had access to his original work permit application, to recognize that Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] had made the coding error on his work permit and correct that error – is unpersuasive. It does not fit within the jurisprudence, which requires the Applicant to comply with the terms and conditions of their status, and report any issues to IRCC such that they can be corrected at the earliest opportunity.
[10] On the application for a new work permit, the Officer had a duty to evaluate the Application that was before him, including the most recent job offer, and the Applicant’s qualifications for it. The Applicant had a duty to submit a complete application to IRCC.
[11] Indeed, the Applicant had 13 months during the tenure of his employment in which he could and should have taken action to address his allegedly improperly‑coded work permit. Ignorance of the immigration system was both inconsistent with the Applicant’s various applications to it, and ultimately his own choice, which he made at his peril (Goyal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 905 at paras 47-48). As Justice Blackhawk stated, with respect to a foreign national that had a similar track record in successfully applying in the past for temporary status in Canada:
[48] He is a college graduate, can read and write in English, and had access to the publicly available information to guide applicants applying under the Policy. It was also open to the Applicant to seek assistance to ensure his application was complete and compliant with the Policy requirements. As noted above, ultimately, an applicant has a duty to provide complete accurate information in their application, to ensure that they “put their best foot forward” so that a reviewing officer has all pertinent information before them in their assessment of the application. The Applicant failed to do this.
[12] The Global Case Management System notes in this case further indicate that the Officer considered the Applicant’s asserted foreign work experience and concluded that the documentary evidence was insufficient to corroborate it. Here, it was open to the Officer to consider whether the previous work experience could satisfy the job requirements. I note that without any apparent error, deference is owed to the Officer and their reasons (Dorrazaei v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 3 at para 12).
[13] In addition, and while not determinative, there was another problematic element for the work permit, which the Officer included in his Decision: the Officer noted that “one of the job duties on the offer letter is to ‘maintain comprehensive financial records as per Financial Policies and Procedures’, which does not appear to be aligned with duties under NOC 42201”
, the NOC for a Direct Support Professional. The Officer reasonably expressed concern that this duty was not aligned with the NOC 42201. This element of the Officer’s valid concern arose directly from the employer’s own description of the position.
[14] Finally, on procedural fairness, the issues identified by the Officer arose from the Applicant’s own materials and from the statutory requirements governing the application. In this context, the duty of procedural fairness falls at the lower end of the spectrum (Patel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 483, at para 40). The Applicant has not demonstrated that additional procedural steps were required or that any deficiency occurred.
[15] In sum, I see no reason to interfere with the Decision. An administrative decision should be left in place if this Court can discern from the record why the decision was made and the decision is otherwise reasonable (Vavilov, at paras 120-122). Read as a whole, the Officer’s reasons disclose an intelligible and coherent chain of analysis.
II. Conclusion
[16] For the reasons set out above, this application for judicial review is dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification, and I agree that none arises.
Email this Content